tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-52890601530180543152024-03-08T05:50:08.297-05:00Kernels of TruthUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-54780448307384010632012-09-18T22:16:00.000-04:002012-10-14T01:07:55.669-04:00Apricot Kernels - Thoughts and PonderingsI suppose this entry is somewhat of a continuation of my last post titled, <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2012/09/apricot-kernels-for-doctors-and-skeptics.html" target="_blank">Apricot Kernels - For Doctors and Skeptics</a><br />
<br />
As a natural skeptic myself, I've often considered how something that's received so much apparent scrutiny from the scientific world could escape recognition of its seeming efficacy. In actuality, apricot kernels themselves have received very little scientific attention. Those of us knowledgeable about their use, and sincere in our beliefs of their therapeutic benefit, are often referred to as quacks and charlatans. Those who've engaged in their supply are referenced as scammers and con-artists, accused of taking advantage of the desperate. Though I try not to take this personally, I can't help but feel ostracized from the world of decent people and reasonable thinkers. <br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
On the flip-side, we scammers, con-artists, quacks and charlatans receive letters and phone calls of high praise and gratitude from the cancer-afflicted and their families. The reports involve stories of amazing tumor regressions, improvements in health, energy, appetite, pain and a general sense of well-being. We're often told that their doctors are astonished by their apparent recoveries. A common medical response seems to be something to the effect of, 'I don't know what you're doing, just keep doing it'. Many of these people seem unwilling to share their alternative protocols with their conventional practitioners in fear of contempt and ridicule. Despite this feedback, we're expected to turn away from apricot kernels and disregard these anecdotes as reports of placebo.<br />
<br />
Although I do believe unsavory elements exist within the realm, most of us simply believe in a reality where nature provides the medicine we require. We feel we've observed enough evidence to be adequately convinced that apricot kernels are, indeed, yet another natural substance of therapeutic value. I'm frustrated and confused by the lacking recognition they've received in this regard.<br />
<br />
Though I'm deeply reluctant to subscribe to pharmaceutical conspiracy theories, I've often turned to these concepts in an effort to explain the total disregard for apricot kernels and their proponents. To those of us immersed in this realm with an absolute belief in their value, the scientific opinion that they're worthless is inexplicable. I've spent countless hours as a lay-person trying to decipher relevant studies and make sense of a scientific puzzle with so many missing pieces. I'm convinced the pieces are missing because they've yet to be manufactured. I'm not unaffected by the studies that have demonstrated little to know efficacy for amygdalin as a therapeutic agent. I don't have an explanation for this. For someone reluctant to attach a conspiracy explanation, the effect is confusion and doubt. I remain convinced, however, that apricot kernels themselves, in their whole form, contain the beginnings of these missing pieces. These feelings are what has led to this very blog. <br />
<br />
It does seem there is an increasing willingness within the medical fraternity to acknowledge the therapeutic benefit of many natural substances; however, despite the backing of peer-reviewed evidence for many of these substances, there still remains a sector that scoffs at the mention of their application in a medical capacity. Could it simply be that this sector remains the controlling opinion within the available educational resources? There is no fresh science where apricot kernels are concerned. There are some relatively recent studies from Korea that have demonstrated efficacy, but the older studies continually referenced are those that dealt with Laetrile and amygdalin specifically, that apparently found little to no benefit. Being an apricot kernel derivative, the assumption remains that apricot kernels themselves are ineffective. I'm astounded that this concept seems to elude the intellectual power of the scrutineers.<br />
<br />
I find it peculiar that an open-mindedness seems to be lacking amongst the majority of would-be healers. This absence of faith in nature's remedies is at odds with the longest standing traditions of healing. The centuries-old principles of medicine have very quickly been replaced by a modern interpretation that has virtually abandoned the ancient wisdom for the notion that man can bend nature to his will and influence its infinite complexities with unnatural control and without consequence. There is no biological rationale for this approach, and yet we continue to race ahead at full speed claiming progress. I pay full respect to surgeons - the real doctors - and acknowledge the leaps forward made by these modern wizards. Those who specialize in pharmaceutical medicine are little more than drug-pushers, in my humble opinion. This area of treatment is more flawed today than it's ever been. The emphasis remains the treatment of symptoms - not disease. This is not healing, and, to my mind, this pursuit is a complete breach of the Hippocratic oath. A focus on symptoms can ultimately only do harm, as there are very few drugs without long-term side-effects.<br />
<br />
I can appreciate that the modern patient has now come to expect swift relief from their ailments and discomforts, unaware of the real costs, but this is only because they've been led to believe that the human animal is incapable of caring for itself and its loved ones. We've been disempowered to such a degree that we rush off to the doctor's office with a sniffle or the mildest of aches. We've been made to fear the slightest discomfort and programmed to put 100% of our faith into a field of treatment that fails to acknowledge that our bodies are healing machines by nature. So much so that they will knowingly take our immune systems out of the equation to better gain control of their processes. <br />
<br />
We've been conditioned to such a poor state that few people seem to question the astronomical increase in the incidence of disease. We've become so apathetic that we simply accept that we'll eventually be afflicted by some terrible ailment, and, in most cases, we're led to believe that it's not our fault. It has nothing to do with our lifestyles or our ignorant choices. Provided that we follow the food pyramid guidelines set out for us by these health carers, any condition we experience is outside of our control. "Drink your milk and eat your bread. Consume these processed foods with symbols of hearts and check-marks and all will be well.". Does it ever strike you as odd that we're the only animal on the planet that drinks the breast milk of another species? And we're led to believe this is an essential, natural source of calcium? Really? Give it some thought.<br />
<br />
The line we're often fed is that disease states haven't increased at all, it's just that diagnostics have improved so much - or, it's not that there's a greater incidence of disease, it's just that there are more people to contract them. Most of us seem to buy this. Blind faith in science. This blind faith was once reserved for spiritual concepts, and people were much healthier then. I suppose what we're meant to believe is that, unlike any other of nature's animals, we and our pets are inherently sickly. It has nothing to do with the unnatural food we eat and feed to our furry little friends. It has nothing to do with the vaccines we subject ourselves to and foist upon our children and our dogs. And it has nothing to do with the endless supply of toxic chemicals prescribed to us by our own doctors for a vast spectrum of ailments that may or may not have existed just 100 years ago. We're just unlucky I guess. What do I know - I'm just a quack.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com8tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-37469248252325772102012-09-09T19:50:00.001-04:002012-10-14T01:08:17.489-04:00Apricot Kernels - For Doctors and SkepticsFirst of all - who am I? I am nothing more than a retired vendor of apricot kernels of many years with a passion for health through nutrition. My experience is based on my dealings with people who have purchased apricot kernels from me and from many others, all over the world. I've supplied apricot kernels to people you might think of as your colleagues and peers. Not just medical professionals, but scientists, members of the regulatory authorities, members of parliament, members of law and other government agencies, celebrities, both film and sport, etc.. I've supplied apricot kernels to all manner of individuals. I mention this to set aside the notion that it is only oddballs, tree huggers or the pathologically gullible who purchase apricot kernels.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
- - - </div>
<br />
A broad selection of people claim to experience therapeutic benefit from the use of apricot kernels, which is why they are ever-increasingly popular. If people weren't experiencing benefit from their use, this whole issue would fizzle out and we'd be having a different conversation. On the flip-side, I acknowledge there must also be a considerable number who experience no benefit at all. In my opinion, there are logical explanations for the experiences of some within this segment.<br />
<br />
For the sake of your own contemplation, let's just suppose that these people, in the benefits category, are experiencing nothing more than a placebo phenomenon. We might even suppose, for your benefit, that 70% of them are liars. You're probably thinking that 70% is too conservative, so let's suppose that an additional 20% are crazy. That leaves us with just 10% who might be reporting reliably. 10% of a large number is still a significant number that shouldn't be ignored. In fact, many of your colleagues have even started to ponder the notion that there might just be something to these bitter, little seeds. I'm aware of many people who have purchased apricot kernels on the advice of their own medical carers. <br />
<br />
Could an unusually consistent placebo effect justify the use of a substance? Are household pets and farm animals susceptible to placebo? Bearing in mind that there are many thousands of people using apricot kernels regularly, has there been a verifiable fatality? What percentage of your patients are succumbing to the treatments they've been prescribed - not to their cancers, but to their treatments? These are all good questions. <br />
<br />
I'll ask you to consider the reasons some of you are so bitterly opposed to the use of apricot kernels in one's approach to overcoming their cancer. I've had this discussion with several of you over the years, but I thought this might be an opportunity to extend the concept to a greater number. Not to engage in a battle of wits or knowledge of biology, as I don't claim to have your education, but to ponder some ideas and preconceived notions that may or may not be justified.<br />
<br />
The following seem to be the 4 key reasons the bulk of you are so dismissive and scathing of the use of apricot kernels. <b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Reason number one</b> - in your opinions, there is a complete lack of peer-reviewed evidence to justify their use. <b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Reason number two</b> - your understanding of apricot kernels is that they release hydrocyanic acid upon metabolism, which you know to be a dangerous poison that has the potential to cause harm or even death.<br />
<br />
<b>Reason number three </b>-<b> </b>most of you equate the use of apricot kernels with the use of Laetrile, and as far as you're concerned, Laetrile was long ago debunked. It's a closed case. <b> </b><br />
<br />
<b>Reason number four</b> - most of you seem to have the belief that those who employ apricot kernels in their efforts to overcome their disease have opted out of conventionally prescribed, "proven" treatments. <br />
<br />
Though I'm not claiming an intentional conspiracy, I do want to suggest that you've succumbed to someone's unjustified propaganda.<br />
<br />
I'm not a Doctor, nor a scientist. I am a skeptic, but not where apricot kernels are concerned. At least, not where an amygdalin-rich specimen is being used. I'd like to talk about my own observations in an honest, open manner. I'm not interested fabricating tales, propagating conspiracy theories or promoting someone's product. I'd simply like to share observations that have been made over many years of interaction with people who have chosen to use apricot kernels in an effort to overcome their conditions. I'll first address the above 4 reasons from my perspective.<br />
<br />
<b>Reason number one</b> - you're correct in one regard. There is a complete lack of peer-reviewed evidence to support the <i>medical</i> prescription of apricot kernels. In your world, the prescription of a substance can only be justified by the consensus of your peers following an adequate collection of empirical evidence to support its use. Most of you are so firmly set in this methodology, you're entirely unwilling to ascribe a morsel of value to anecdotal evidence, despite its overwhelming presence. You're not prepared to consider that, even if only a small fraction of these anecdotes are reliable, they represent justifiable cause to take serious note.<br />
<br />
Interestingly, for those of us who have been immersed in this concept for some time, reports of therapeutic benefit to domestic animals, both farm and household, are not at all uncommon. For as long as apricot kernels have been used amongst the human population, they've also been given to pets and livestock to treat similar conditions, and with seemingly equal success. I've had dealings with many individuals who had procured apricot kernels on the advice of their veterinary doctors. <br />
<br />
<b>Reason number two</b> - apricot kernels contain amygdalin, which is, of course, comprised of a molecule of HCN (hydrocyanic acid), a molecule of benzaldehyde (the chemical used to flavor marzipan) and two molecules of glucose. According to theoretical data and understanding about the toxicology of cyanide, you've made the assumption that any substance containing cyanic compounds must be dangerous. You've not given consideration to the natural expectation our bodies have of cyanogenic glycosides and the natural mechanisms employed to utilize and metabolize their constituents within biologically rational values. Nor has consideration been given to the adaptability of our bodies and the flexible capacity to process larger and larger quantities safely and without adverse reaction as experiential expectations increase. This natural ability, of course, must be factored into the equation - into one's susceptibility to intoxication. This is never an acknowledged factor in the cautionary propaganda. <br />
<br />
The fact of the matter is, hundreds of thousands of people have used apricot kernels over decades without experiencing adverse reactions of a serious nature. They've used apricot kernels in quantities that far exceed the values being pushed forward as dangerous, if not lethal. This screaming discrepancy lends itself to conspiracy theory. These values given to the public represent an unlikely individual that bears little resemblance to the majority of users, which creates a scenario of confusion and disbelief. <br />
<br />
You will likely argue that many people have, indeed, brought themselves to hospital with reports of side-effects from the consumption of apricot kernels. I will argue that not one of those people have EVER died as a result of cyanide toxicity. There is not one verifiable, documented case of a fatality resulting from the ingestion of apricot kernels. This is a fact that should surprise any of you vaguely familiar with the apricot kernel controversy. I ask that you allow your minds to wander and consider the hundreds of substances readily available, and prescribed, that result in death on a regular basis. The mild side-effects experienced by users of apricot kernels don't represent a danger to their lives. If one considers the very poor states of health many users of apricot
kernels suffer, you'd think it wouldn't take much to tip them over. In cases of acute toxicity, the antidote is 100% effective. <br />
<br />
<b>Reason number three</b> - Laetrile is, in fact, derived from apricot kernels. Most people familiar with this topic are aware of this. I don't want to discuss Laetrile here, but I suppose it must be touched on briefly for the sake of distinguishing the differences between the two substances.<br />
<br />
What is Laetrile? There's significant confusion that has arisen through the improper use of terminology in this debate. The term, 'Laetrile', is often wrongly used interchangeably with the terms, 'Amygdalin', and, "Vitamin B17". <br />
<br />
Laetrile was a patented, semi-synthetic compound derived from amygdalin. In its original form, it shared only part of amygdalin's molecular structure. Most of the laetrile (as opposed to <b>L</b>aetrile) available today is, in fact, amygdalin, usually extracted from apricot kernels. This is the link between laetrile and apricot kernels. Some of the studies done have used amygdalin extracted from peach kernels, but it is chemically identical regardless of its source. "Vitamin B17" was a term coined by Ernst Krebs Junior, a biochemist largely responsible for the fame of this very substance. "Vitamin B17" is simply amygdalin. It was the theory of Krebs that amygdalin was an essential dietary expectation and, thus, appropriately classed the 17th of the B vitamins. He and his father were also responsible for the controversial naming of "Vitamin B15" or, 'Pangamic Acid'. Both substances are contained within apricot kernels and other nitrilosides.<br />
<br />
I have very little experience with people who have used Laetrile or an apricot kernel extraction of any of the varieties available in an ongoing, long-term protocol. I can't rightfully comment in either direction based on personal experience. I will say, however - and this is contrary to popular understanding - even the NCI (National Cancer Institute) acknowledges the following<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i><a href="http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/laetrile/HealthProfessional/page5" target="_blank">No controlled clinical trial of laetrile has ever been conducted</a>.</i></blockquote>
<br />
Taking this into consideration, the scathing contempt so many of you hold for those who would dare suggest that Laetrile is worthy of a closer look seems rather unjustified. <br />
<br />
However, this entry and its parent blog is, for the most part, about apricot kernels as a separate entity to Laetrile. To my knowledge, no study has ever been conducted that looks at apricot kernels as a therapeutic substance in their whole-food form. Incidentally, it was the belief of Krebs that it was in this form that amygdalin had its greatest potential. <br />
<br />
<b>Reason number 4</b> - very few people who use apricot kernels opt out of conventional treatment. The vast majority are either using them as an adjunct or they've been given no hope by their doctors and have sought them out in a bid for their lives. That people are opting out of "proven" treatments for apricot kernels is simply not true in the majority of cases.<br />
<br />
I am, of course, aware that there are people who opt out of conventional treatment in favor of a metabolic protocol that involves laetrile, and I don't blame them at all. There is fair reason to feel hopeful of their outcomes, but more importantly, I think many of these people simply want to preserve a quality of life for however much longer they have to enjoy it. Conventional therapies strip people of their quality of life for a slim hope of recovery. You can't blame someone for wanting to avoid this scenario, nor practitioners wanting to provide an alternative to those seeking one. That aside, and though apricot kernels are a component of these metabolic protocols, most people using them are not amongst this group opting out of conventional therapies.<br />
<br />
The most vocal amongst you talk about the cost of the metabolic protocols as though they are outrageously expensive. But I must point out that their costs don't even begin to approach those of conventional treatment, so I fail to see how a cost comparison provides you any leverage in your arguments. Statistical extension of life doesn't appear to. What is the argument?<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
- - - </div>
<br />
This is the reality - a fair percentage of those who use apricot kernels attribute an improvement in their conditions to the use of apricot kernels. Not only do they claim an improved condition, but also relief from pain and discomfort, a return of appetite, an increase in weight, a lowering of blood pressure and a general improvement in energy and a sense of well-being. <br />
<br />
For the sake of argument, let's say that all of these experiences represent a placebo effect. Does that matter? In almost a complete absence of evidence for serious harm, apricot kernels not only seem to be an unusually consistent placebo, they also provide hope where hope is almost nonexistent. Does it matter that apricot kernels lack scientific evidence of efficacy? The studies have never been done. Until they've been conclusively proven worthless, why do you care that people use apricot kernels in an effort to gain control of their health? The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. We should continue to seriously explore the reasons people appear to be benefiting from their use. <br />
<br />
We are natural creatures living a not-so-natural existence. If we don't stray too far from our biological expectations of <a href="https://www.google.com/search?q=apricot%20kernels&gl#hl=en&q=whole+foods&tbs=dfn:1&tbo=u&sa=X&psj=1&ei=XSBNUOeFEemYiAeKsoGoBQ&ved=0CBwQkQ4&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=979b907ae7f34120&biw=1920&bih=923" target="_blank">whole foods</a> and activity, providing our bodies with a broad selection of quality nutrients will keep them running well and healthy. When wounds are acquired, bones are broken, or we're inundated by microbial infections, the body makes use of the nutrients we provide to heal itself. This is a remarkable and seemingly miraculous ability. Without it, few of us would live past the age of 3. Those who did would be limping along with infected sores, open wounds and broken limbs. Without the aid of any doctor or health practitioner of any modality, our bodies will naturally recover from most conditions. As a species, we've managed to survive without "modern medicine" a fair while. Suddenly, in the presence of modern medicine, we're led to believe we can no longer take care of ourselves.<br />
<br />
We <i>have</i> strayed from our biological expectations and we do sometimes require a helping hand or a nudge in the right direction. Our bodies have evolved to expect all that they require from the natural environments we're meant to live within. Amygdalin is processed by systems within our bodies that have evolved to anticipate similar, natural compounds. It makes use of these external factors to address internal scenarios. These compounds and elements comprise the many known vitamins, minerals and other nutrients our bodies have evolved to receive. The expectation is one of whole, natural substances - not their individual components, or foreign compounds for which they have no frame of reference. However, science seems entirely unwilling to acknowledge that we can even overcome cancers and other serious conditions without the use of unnatural chemicals or processes. It stands to reason that any natural condition we are confronted with can only be overcome through biologically rational factors. To argue that we understand nature and its own processes better than nature itself is egotistical and dangerous. <br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-64087133448662169882012-08-25T19:39:00.000-04:002012-10-14T01:19:58.042-04:00Apricot Kernels - and Fasting<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<b><i>“Everyone has a physician inside him or her; we just have to
help it in its work. The natural healing force within each one of us is
the greatest force in getting well. Our food should be our medicine.
Our medicine should be our food. But to eat when you are sick is to feed
your sickness.” – </i>Hippocrates</b></blockquote>
<br />
I've long been a supporter of periodic fasting - particularly when the desire to heal is concerned. Anytime I'm starting to feel unwell, bogged down or sluggish, I know a period of fasting is in order. Though the first couple of days are a struggle - especially through winter - the amazing sense of well-being that follows in a body unburdened by digestion makes it an occasional exercise I look forward to. My fasts usually last about one week, but I've juice fasted for several. <br />
<br />
The act of digestion utilizes considerable energy and bodily resources. The reality is, the majority of those of western cultures eat too much. Not only do we consume too much food, we traditionally consume foods that are detrimental to an optimal state of health. I'm not going to preach about healthy diets right at this moment, but suffice it to say, few of us consume a nutritionally sound diet. If this is a surprise to you, then this is something you need to start giving serious consideration to, as this concept is the foundation of health, be it poor or excellent.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
When we temporarily remove solids from the diet, the energy that is typically used for digestion is donated to healing and cellular repair. With the absence of new substance, it's a great opportunity for the body to dump old toxins and other accumulated wastes. You might be surprised by the sludge your body will purge given the opportunity.<br />
<br />
At the beginning of any healing mission, a water fast is a very good
idea. I'm not going to go into any great detail about fasting, as there
is so much good information out there. Just visit our good friends
Google and enter the search terms, <a href="https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=water+fasting+healing" target="_blank">water fasting healing</a>. A water fast is a bit like an internal boot camp. It's a fast and aggressive exercise to rid the body and organs of toxins, and clean the blood of accumulated undesirables. Once the water fast is complete, if you're really ambitious and eager, you might decide to jump straight into a <a href="https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=juice+fasting+healing" target="_blank">juice fast</a>.<br />
<br />
Though a water fast is a great way to detox, a juice and supplement fast is also a terrific way to deliver nutrients to the body without the competition for resources that exists in the normal day to day. The metabolism of solids and their many constituents require breaking down for their nutrients to be effectively extracted and utilized. This requires considerable energy.<br />
<br />
A recent article in the UK's Daily Mail reports a study published in the journal, <i>Science Translational Medicine</i>. The study identified that periods of fasting slowed the growth and spread of cancer and improved the efficacy of treatment.<br />
<br />
<blockquote>
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace; font-size: small;">"Fasting without chemotherapy was shown to slow the growth of breast cancer, melanoma skin cancer, glioma brain cancer and neuroblastoma - a cancer that forms in the nerve tissue.<br /><br />In every case, combining fasting with chemotherapy made the cancer treatment more effective. <br /><br />Multiple cycles of fasting combined with chemotherapy cured 20 per cent of those with a highly aggressive form of cancer while 40 per cent with a limited spread of the same cancer were cured.<br /><br />None of the mice survived if they were treated with chemotherapy alone.<br /><br />Researchers are already investigating the effects of fasting on human patients, but only a clinical trial lasting several years will confirm if human cancer patients really can benefit from calorie restriction."</span></blockquote>
More of the article can be <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2098363/Fasting-help-combat-cancer-boost-effectiveness-treatments.html" target="_blank">read here</a>.<br />
<br />
Of course, fasting for healing and its use in various alternative treatment protocols is not a new concept in the realm of complementary "alternative" medicine.<br />
<br />
Fasting is one means to initiate a process called, '<a href="http://www.marksdailyapple.com/fasting-cancer" target="_blank">Autophagy</a>', which is a mechanism our bodies employ to repair or destroy faulty cells. A <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18716458" target="_blank">study done in Spain</a> demonstrated the efficient suppression of tumor growth in an aggressive brain cancer model through cyanide-induced autophagy. Linamarin was used in this particular study, which is a cyanogenic glycoside very similar to amygdalin in structure. Could this, perhaps, be another possible mechanism for apricot kernels and their apparent efficacy in the control of cancer?<br />
<br />
Though solid, consider using apricot kernels through the fast. Chew
them very well (until liquid) and use them in sensible quantities, always aware of the
effects of these quantities. Don't overdo it thinking that more is
necessarily better. You should never use them in quantities that cause
you to feel unwell. In the absence of other food in your stomach, you
may need to reduce your usual quantities, much like alcohol tends to
have a greater influence on an empty stomach.<br />
<br />
If you choose to experiment with this, do it <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-safe-dosage-practical.html" target="_blank">safely and responsibly</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-5087191197344620222012-08-22T23:42:00.000-04:002012-09-24T03:42:22.410-04:00Apricot Kernels - Shelf-life & Storage<h4>
<span style="font-size: small;">How long will apricot kernels keep and why is this information important?</span></h4>
<h4>
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span></h4>
<br />
An apricot kernel's state of health plays a major role in its nutrient content. The length of time out of the shell and exposed to open oxygen will dictate how long they'll last once in your possession. Oxidation is not only the number one enemy to vitamins, it also causes nut and seed oils to go rancid at room temperature.<br />
<br />
There are several factors that influence an apricot kernel's shelf-life. After apricot stones (whole seed, shell and all) have been removed from the fruit and allowed to dry naturally, they will keep for, at least, 3 years at ambient temperature (room temperature) if stored dry. The shell preserves the seed and protects it from environmental contaminants and oxidation. Once cracked and exposed to oxygen, the shelf-life begins, as does the process of rancidity. How the kernels are stored from this stage will dictate the shelf-life.<br />
<br />
At refrigeration temperatures and stored sealed, either in an oxygen barrier bag or some other air-tight containment, the shelf-life will be approximately 2 years. However, how long ago the kernel was cracked must be taken into consideration. For this reason, a good rule of thumb is to halve the shelf-life, as it can seldom be known when the kernel was actually cracked from the shell. This is particularly true of <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-which-should-be-used.html" target="_blank">imported nuts and seeds</a>. Imported seeds are often well on their way to rancid, if not rancid already. A study conducted a few years ago (which I'm presently trying to find to reference directly) found that most imported nuts and seeds sold were, on average, at least, two years old before they made their way into the consumer's home. <br />
<br />
When stored sealed and refrigerated, the process of rancidity is greatly slowed. At room temperature, an average shelf-life will be about 6 months to be safe. That said, nuts and seeds should always be stored refrigerated to prolong their life, their nutrient spectrum, and prevent them from going rancid. This will also prevent pest infestation, such as the dreaded pantry or meal moth.<br />
<br />
Apricot kernels can be stored in the freezer, contrary to conflicting information elsewhere. Freezer storage has no impact on amygdalin levels; however, sub-zero temperatures will effectively kill living seeds, as the embryo can't survive prolonged periods of freezing. Once frozen, it's best to keep them frozen, as they are now dead and will enter a state of decomposition at warmer temperatures. They can be used straight from the freezer without concern of defrosting. Dried apricot kernels have very low moisture content, so they will never freeze solid and they will last indefinitely in this state. That said, my belief is that raw, living seeds are always best. Living seeds retain their full spectrum of nutrients, including those yet discovered.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-90796039790222020862012-07-22T21:38:00.000-04:002012-09-24T04:13:56.061-04:00Apricot Kernels - Keep Cancer At Bay<b><br /></b>
<b>Can apricot kernels keep cancer at bay?</b><br />
<br />
This is the title of an article published in Australia's <i>The Age</i> newspaper. The article reports on the successes of Paul Reid, an Australian who employed bitter apricot kernels and a nutritional regime to overcome his cancer. <br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">"Paul Reid should be dead. Diagnosed with rare, incurable lymphoma, he was given five years, seven tops, by his oncologist. But having cheated death on Ash Wednesday bushfires, he was not about to surrender his life without a fight.</span><br />
<br style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;" />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> His weapon of choice? Apricot kernels. Thirty a day. Reid turned down chemotherapy, vowing to eat himself well. Today, 13 years in remission, the 68-year-old believes that “cancer-killing” properties in the kernels he still eats daily, coupled with a strict vegan diet and prayer, have cured him.</span><br />
<br style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;" />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> “We’re not immortal, but I believe I’ll be healthy from taking this direction,” he says.</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> Reid is among a growing number of cancer patients who see food as the key to their survival – a trend worrying doctors who fear people may be risking their lives by embarking on extreme, unproven diets. Some patients are forgoing conventional medical treatment and putting their faith in “anti-cancer diets, promoted by alternative health practitioners, or buying untested nutritional supplements on the internet…….</span><br />
<br style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;" />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> Paul Reid challenged mainstream medicine’s prognosis with a regime of colonic cleansing, a 75 percent raw fruit and vegetable diet, and chewing on apricot kernels – rich in amygdalin, an extract also known as B17, which doctors say is a “phoney” vitamin, but which supporters claim kills cancer cells.</span> </blockquote>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> He is convinced that his diet was the cornerstone of his recovery. The fact that no robust research supports his restrictive diet, or that there is evidence high doses of amygdalin can cause cyanide poisoning, and in some cases, death, is of little consequence to the Berwick father of two.</span><br />
<br style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;" />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> “So what if there’s no scientific proof? What has a person to lose by going on an organic diet?” he asks. “I don’t think my journey has been unscientific, it’s just that there’s been no science in a big way applied to it.”</span><br />
<span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;"> The substances we ingest undoubtedly affect the body’s metabolic processes. Drinking alcohol can lead to slurred speech and loss of balance, while eating too much fat and sugar can cause weight gain. But food’s effect on cancer is less clear. Some practitioners in both the medical and alternative communities point to research that certain foods can either promote or inhibit cancer cell growth. Other say the the disease is caused by a build-up of toxins that must be flushed from the body with nutrient-rich produce, or that cancer feeds on sugar."</span><span style="font-family: "Courier New",Courier,monospace;">………………………<br />
Dr Phelps, a GP and president of the Australasian Integrative Medicine
Association, says most alternative practitioners operate ethically, and
many work collaboratively with mainstream doctors. However she says
that there is a pressing need for greater attention to be paid to
nutrition in medicine schools and for more funding to research
potential links between food and cancer. “Just because we haven’t got the whole picture yet
doesn’t mean there isn’t something in it.” she says.
“We are gathering information gradually, which is the way you
gather evidence. </span> </blockquote>
Paul Reid has posted comments on <a href="http://www.ultimatenutrition.com.au/apricot_kernels.htm">his own website</a> to a couple of articles published by The Age. The second article takes on a different tone - one of vilification regarding an <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2012/01/apricot-kernels-trouble-in-australia.html" target="_blank">Australian business</a> supposedly selling apricot kernels as a "cancer cure despite cyanide warnings". This article was found to be completely inaccurate, taking liberties with reality so common for so many reporters lacking scruples. <br />
<br />
Commentary on both articles can be read on Paul Reid's website at - <a href="http://www.ultimatenutrition.com.au/apricot_kernels.htm">http://www.ultimatenutrition.com.au/apricot_kernels.htm</a>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-9730254549512216162012-04-21T23:17:00.000-04:002012-08-19T11:18:48.550-04:00The Ultimate Guide to Vitamin B-17 Metabolic Therapy<table><tr><td><a href="http://ebookbrowse.com/090619-ultimate-guide-to-vitamin-b17-cancer-41-pdf-d293903366"><b>by<br>worldwithoutcancer.org.uk</b></a></td></tr><tr><td><iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fxa.yimg.com%2Fkq%2Fgroups%2F19406948%2F875825506%2Fname%2F090619%20ultimate%20guide%20to%20vitamin%20b17%26cancer-41.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:500px; height:800px;" frameborder="0"></iframe></td></tr><tr><td style="font-size:12px;padding:5px 0 12px;">View more <a href="http://ebookbrowse.com/ul/ultimate-guide-to-vitamin-b17" target="_blank" >ebooks</a> on <a href="http://ebookbrowse.com" target="_blank" >ebookbrowse.com</a></td></tr></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-91170503946331632702012-04-11T19:58:00.000-04:002012-08-18T20:02:35.825-04:00The Nature of Cancer<table><tr><td><a href="http://ebookbrowse.com/the-nature-of-cancer-krebs-pdf-d199240208"><b>by Ernst Krebs jr.</b><p></a></td></tr><tr><td><iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.storesonlinepro.com%2Ffiles%2F2012855%2Fuploaded%2FThe%20Nature%20of%20Cancer%20-%20Krebs.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:500px; height:800px;" frameborder="0"></iframe></td></tr><tr><td style="font-size:12px;padding:5px 0 12px;">View more <a href="http://ebookbrowse.com/th/the-nature-of-cancer-krebs" target="_blank" >ebooks</a> on <a href="http://ebookbrowse.com" target="_blank" >ebookbrowse.com</a></td></tr></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-50965864424825651612012-04-06T23:35:00.000-04:002012-08-18T19:48:21.079-04:00World Without Cancer<table><tr><td><a href="http://ebookbrowse.com/world-without-cancer-pdf-d296713549"><b>The Story of<br>Vitamin B17<br>by G. Edward Griffin<p></b></a></td></tr><tr><td><iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alaalsayid.com%2Febooks%2FWorld%20Without%20Cancer.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:500px; height:800px;" frameborder="0"></iframe></td></tr><tr><td style="font-size:12px;padding:5px 0 12px;">View more <a href="http://ebookbrowse.com/wo/world-without-cancer" target="_blank" >ebooks</a> on <a href="http://ebookbrowse.com" target="_blank" >ebookbrowse.com</a></td></tr></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-16152540659854527812012-03-16T23:07:00.000-04:002012-08-18T19:39:15.864-04:00Alive and Well<table><tr><td><a href="http://ebookbrowse.com/binzel-alive-and-well-one-doctor-s-experience-with-nutrition-in-the-treatment-of-cancer-patients-1994-pdf-d201260280"><b>One Doctor's Experience<br>With Nutrition in the<br>Treatment of<br>Cancer Patients<p>by<p>Philip E. Binzel jr., M.D.</b></a></td></tr><tr><td><iframe src="http://docs.google.com/gview?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedaku.com%2Fimages%2FBinzel_-_Alive_and_Well_-_One_Doctor_s_Experience_With_Nutrition_in_the_Treatment_of_Cancer_Patients_1994_.pdf&embedded=true" style="width:500px; height:800px;" frameborder="0"></iframe></td></tr><tr><td style="font-size:12px;padding:5px 0 12px;">View more <a href="http://ebookbrowse.com/binzel-alive-and-well-one-doctor-s-experience-with-nutrition-in-the-treatment-of-cancer-patients-1994-pdf-d201260280" target="_blank" >ebooks</a> on <a href="http://ebookbrowse.com" target="_blank" >ebookbrowse.com</a></td></tr></table>Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-2795259237184601722012-02-11T23:57:00.000-05:002012-09-24T20:32:40.951-04:00Apricot Kernels - Some Work, Some Don't.I've already covered this to some degree in <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-which-should-be-used.html" target="_blank">an earlier post</a>, but the importance of this concept can't be stressed enough.<br />
<br />
I'd first like to point out, however, that apricot kernels must be used <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/apricot-kernels-safe-dosage-practical.html" target="_blank">intelligently and safely</a>. It is possible to overwhelm our natural capacities to process amygdalin without adverse reactions. We don't want these reactions and we can avoid them treading carefully. We all have varying tolerances, and quantities must be varied accordingly. The variation in amygdalin concentrations from one kernel to the next makes it necessary to be particularly cautious and dismissive of general dosage recommendations.<br />
<br />
My intent with this entry is to provoke consideration that is seldom given. If you're experiencing benefit from the apricot kernels you're presently using, continue with them, regardless. <br />
<br />
I had some email correspondence with an individual who had been purchasing his kernels from a supplier in Australia. Following a temporary ban of their kernels and closure of their site, this individual was forced to purchase his apricot seeds from another supplier, as were many others. Having made the assumption that all bitter apricot seeds are essentially the same, this individual continued to use these kernels at the same rate he had been using the originals. What he didn't realize was that the original supply had a much higher concentration of amygdalin, which meant that he had slashed his amygdalin dosage by a significant margin. The result was a decline in his state of wellness. Fortunately, he made the connection between this downturn and the quality of these replacement apricot seeds. It was later discovered that these seeds were a much inferior, imported product being sold as Australian. <br />
<br />
All bitter apricot kernels are not the same, nor are they similar enough to apply the same dosage to all cultivars. The range of amygdalin per kilogram of commercially available "bitter" apricot kernels is vast - from roughly 1,500mg/kg to nearly 70,000mg/kg. This entire range may be sold and marketed as bitter apricot kernels, with implications of their suitability in therapeutic applications. A large percentage of apricot kernel vendors would be unaware that their products have little to no efficacy in this regard. We can reasonably assume that the average falls somewhere within the middle at between 15,000mg/kg and 50,000mg/kg.<br />
<br />
In the very bitter varieties, such as those in the upper range containing close to 50,000 mg/kg, just 15 kernels is roughly equivalent to 500mg of amygdalin. In contrast, 15 kernels on the lower end of the average will yield just 150mg of amygdalin. One would have to consume 50 kernels to achieve 500mg of amygdalin. 15 kernels versus 50 kernels. For some, a daily quantity might be as high as 60 kernels or close to 2,000mg of amygdalin in the more bitter varieties, versus 600mg in the less bitter varieties. For those not aware of the importance of a properly bitter source of kernels, a relatively large number of kernels may be yielding very little amygdalin. You can now see how some kernels might be effective where others fail to hit the mark, which would ultimately impact on the perception of efficacy across the board. If we were all using an appropriately bitter apricot kernel, we could reasonably assume that the success rates could be much higher.<br />
<br />
Read my post on <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com.au/2010/11/apricot-kernels-safe-dosage-practical.html">safe dosage</a>. Be sensible and responsible. Most importantly, don't rush it.<br />
<br />
Take it upon yourself to know where your apricot kernels come from.
Don't be lured by marketing spin, such as "Hunza" or "Hunza region".
These are simply terms used to give kernels from Pakistan or
India greater credit than they deserve. Most of the kernels that come from this region are of
sweeter varieties. All apricot kernels imported en masse have undergone
undesirable treatments required by the customs/quarantine departments of
the world. They are typically old, oxidized and can be rancid or well on their way.
Choose local whenever possible. If you're in Canada, the United States
or Australia, home-grown options are readily available to you. Choose
the most bitter kernel available, which is the kernel
containing the most amygdalin. If you must use foreign kernels,
purchase only from reputable sources.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com12tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-59607533362075906892012-01-01T22:22:00.000-05:002012-09-18T00:55:52.201-04:00Apricot Kernels - Trouble in AustraliaFollowing an alleged incident involving someone in Queensland, Australia, ChiTree Apricot Kernels were temporarily shut down by the regulators and forced to conduct a national recall of their product. Though they're now back up and running, they've had to relabel their product as a non-food item and warn against the dangers of consumption. <br />
<br />
The person involved in this alleged incident supposedly consumed approximately 40 apricot kernels in one sitting. They felt ill as a result and presented to hospital. No details or evidence of the alleged incident have been provided to the media, which strikes me as odd. Following this report, all apricot kernels available in Australia were tested for amygdalin content by the Australian Department of Health. ChiTree's apricot kernels were found to contain the highest concentration. <br />
<br />
The action was taken in an effort to "protect the public" from harm. It is therefore surprising that ChiTree was the only supplier forced to recall their product and adorn their website with warnings about consumption. Oddly, their Australian competition continue to sell apricot kernels along side information about alternative cancer therapies and Laetrile specifically. <br />
<br />
The future for apricot kernels in Australia remains uncertain. The regulators are seeking to make it illegal to sell them as a food in their raw state. However, there are many valid uses, many of which don't involve consumption, so they'll never become unavailable. <a href="http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/fn-an/pubs/securit/2009-apricots-abricots/index-eng.php" target="_blank">A similar incident happened in Canada</a> a few years back, and those kernels remain on the market. <br />
<br />
It should be noted that thousands of people in Australia and Canada have been using apricot kernels therapeutically for decades and this alleged incident appears to be the first of its kind in Australia, as was the case with the Canadian incident.<br />
<br />
When one consumes too many apricot kernels at once, side-effects can be experienced. The vast majority of people wouldn't take themselves off to hospital in this event. This may simply have been a case of an overly cautious individual. The doctor asks the patient, "What have you been eating?". The patient replies, "40 Apricot kernels.". The doctor proceeds to check the blood and verifies, "Yes, your blood has higher than normal levels of cyanide.". The doctor then reports the incident to the authorities, as would be protocol. <br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-47919095400735023352011-09-23T23:23:00.000-04:002012-08-20T01:46:31.473-04:00Ralph Moss on Chemotherapy, Laetrile, Coley's Toxins, Burzynski, & Cancer Politics<div align="left">
<b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"> <br />
</span>Laura Lee radio show, 1994</b><br />
<br />
This is an interview with Ralph Moss by Laura Lee.<br />
<br />
<b>Ralph Walter Moss</b> is an American author whose writings advocate
alternative cancer treatments. Moss served as a science writer and
assistant director of public affairs at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer
Center in the 1970s.<b><span style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: x-small;"> </span></b></div>
<div align="left">
<br /></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span> The medical establishment keeps telling us that there are only 3
ways to treat cancer -- chemotherapy, radiation and surgery. Many people disagree
and among them is Dr Ralph Moss, author of a new book, Cancer Therapy. Dr Moss,
can we have a bit of background and why you became interested and decided to
devote your practice and research to cancer? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
Twenty years ago I was hired at Memorial Sloane Kettering (MSK) cancer center
in New York as the science writer, later promoted to assistant director of public
affairs. Shortly after I went to work there I went to visit an elderly Japanese
scientist, Kanematsu Sugiura, who astonished me when he told me he was working
on Laetrile (B17), at the time it was the most controversial thing in cancer,
reputed to be a cure for cancer. We in public affairs were giving out
statements that Laetrile was worthless, it was quackery, and people should not
abandon proven therapies. I was astonished that our most distinguished scientist
would be bothering with something like this, and I said why are you doing this
if it does not work. He took down lab books and showed me that in fact Laetrile
is dramatically effective in stopping the spread of cancer. The animals were
genetically programmed to get breast cancer and about 80 - 90% of them normally
get spread of the cancer from the breast to the lungs which is a common route
in humans, also for how people die of breast cancer, and instead when they gave
the animals Laetrile by injection only 10-20% of them got lung metastases.
And these facts were verified by many people, including the pathology department. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>So this is verified, that Laetrile can have this positive effect? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
We were finding this and yet we in public affairs were told to issue statements
to the exact opposite of what we were finding scientifically, and as the years
went by I got more rapped up in this thing and 3 years later I said all this
in my own press conference, and was fired the next day, "for failing to carry
out his most basic job responsibility" -- ie to lie to the public what goes
on in cancer research </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> How
can these people justify this in their own minds? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Basically the attitude was best expressed by Lewis Thomas, the president
of the center, who told my boss, as he would not see me, "I am not going to
die on the barricades for Laetrile. It is not a cure, it is only a palliative,
(meaning it relieves pain and stops the spread of cancer), if it were a cure
it might be a different story, but I am not going to give up my career, to die
on the barricades". That's how they justified it in their own minds. I could
not do that, nor could Dr Sugiura, who never renounced the results of his own
studies, despite the fact they put enormous pressure on him to do so. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>Are we practicing science here, or medicine, or politics? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
Politics. Political science as we say! </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> You
were mentioning that patients hear cure rate when something very different is
being talked about. And we can go into the poor statistics for the standard
modalities. They are not that effective, which is why everyone is looking for
an alternative. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
When I was at MSK a lot of very weird things started to happen to me, there
was this cognitive distance between what I was told, and was writing about treatment,
especially chemotherapy, and what I was seeing with my own eyes. One time I
heard the head of the intensive care unit give a talk in which he bragged about
how he had one of the lowest mortality rates in his unit. I went out to lunch
with him, where he became a bit inebriated, and told me how he managed to get
those statistics -- by wheeling the dying patients out into the corridor where
they died and didn't sully our departments record. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Lets
skew those statistics any way that looks good to us. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Another time I went to interview a breast surgeon, and he had a lamp
in the shape of a women's breast on his desk. I couldn't even get out a single
interview question I was so astounded by this insensitivity, and here women were
flocking in to have their breasts removed by this guy, and I thought...I didn't
have any idea what was wrong but it was that twilight zone of knowing, feeling
that something was definitely wrong but not knowing what it was. It was only
when I had the enforced leisure from being fired that I was able to really look
into it. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> It
is interesting how many establishment doctors start out, in many cases to disprove
the efficacy of alternative therapies and become advocates of alternative therapies.
I don't hear many stories of the other way round. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>No, it is not likely. So, I started to look into the whole question of
chemotherapy in particular, that is the cutting edge of orthodox treatment and
I have now completed a report -- Chemotherapy, How, When, and Why. With emphasis
on the why. Although we do give some information for those who are taking chemotherapy
on what they can take to decrease the side effects. Basically it is a very critical
and comprehensive look, for we deal with about 60 different types of cancer,
and all of the FDA approved anti cancer drugs. The bottom line is for a few
kinds of cancer chemo is a life extending procedure -- Hodgkin's disease, Acute
Lymphocytic Leukemia, Testicular cancer, and Choriocarcinoma. Testicular cancer
has yielded to platinum containing drugs. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>It probably makes you impotent </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
It does more than that. It is extremely damaging to the body, but it does lead
to a very extended life for people with this problem. An interesting thing is
that platinum is the old homeopathic drug for problems of the testicles or
the ovaries, and Hahnemann proved that on himself 180 years ago, but Allopathic
medicine takes this basic idea, without giving credit of course, ups the dose
by the billions because they can't conceive of small doses having significant
biological effect, and consequently put in massive amounts of homeopathic medicines
and cause tremendous toxicity and other problems, second cancers down the road
and so forth. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Outside
those 4 or 5 treatments for which chemotherapy is effective there are a few
where there is very moderate effectiveness in terms of life extension -- lung
cancer and ovarian cancer with a possibility of colon cancer. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>When you look at the statistics chemotherapy is a standard treatment
for all types of cancer generally speaking. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Yes, it has become. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>However, when you really look at the statistics, you were saying, only
a few respond. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Yes, 2-4%. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>How in the world, Dr Moss, can it be considered a standard cure, when
it works for 2-4, and very specific ones? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>We are dealing with an industry. It is not supported by the facts. The
way that it is done is this. The drugs are tested in test tubes, and they look
for things that will kill cells. After you have found something that kills cells,
cancer cells, cell lines which are very abnormal non-typical sort of growths,
maybe a new life form almost, then you put it into animals. Then if it kills
the cancers before it kills the animals, and shrinks the tumors, you consider
you have an active agent. You then put it into people, and go through the 3
phases the FDA prescribes for this, and basically if you can shrink the tumor
50% or more for 28 days you have got the FDA's definition of an active drug.
That is called a response rate, so you have a response.. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>Different from a cure? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Quite a bit because when you look to see if there is any life prolongation
from taking this treatment what you find is all kinds of hocus pocus and song
and dance about the disease free survival, and this and that. In the end there
is no proof that chemotherapy in the vast majority of cases actually extends
life, and this is the GREAT LIE about chemotherapy, that somehow there is a
correlation between shrinking a tumor and extending the life of the patient. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Or
that there is a correlation between looking at a cancer cell in a test tube
and the tumor in someone's body. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Absolutely. What happens as you grow those cells in cell lines they become
very weird. Hundreds and hundreds of generations later they don't even look
like even normal human cancer cells. They are things that grow under glass,
immortal cells, unlike normal body cells or normal cancer cells. So much cancer
research is very questionable because it is based on this cell line research. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>Politics it seems is the word you must understand in order to understand
what is going on. It is not science, it is not medicine, it is politics.. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
And big money You have to understand that cancer is 1/9th of the overall health
budget in the United States. The last figures I have seen from the American
Cancer Society of money spent on cancer indirectly or directly at 107 Billion
dollars. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b> </span></span><span style="font-size: small;">AIDS
is a 4 billion dollar... </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Research, but you can't come compare AIDS to cancer. Cancer we are talking
about well over a million cases a year, not counting skin cancer which probably
equals that. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> One
million new cases discounting skin cancer? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
Right. About 630,000 people die every year of cancer in the US, and it really
is an epidemic disease. We have got a tremendous industry. Every one of
those people who is getting cancer and dying of it is going to be treated, and
these treatments are extremely expensive. Chemo is tens of thousands, sometimes
hundreds of thousands of dollars. A bone marrow transplantation which is basically
another way of giving chemotherapy or radiation can run to about 150,000 dollars
per person, and is almost never effective. It kills about 25%.. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>Why carry on doing it? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
Because of the money, which is tremendous. If you look at the board of directors
of MSK you will find that the drug industry has a dominant position on that
board. One company in particular, Bristol Myers, which produces between 40-50%
of all the chemotherapy in the world, and they have top positions at MSK hospital. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>Doesn't that constitute a serious conflict of interest? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
They are selling their own drugs to that particular hospital but they have written
into the by-laws of the centre that it does not constitute a conflict of interest
to sell their company drugs to the center. They get around it by not taking
a salary. They are not paid, they are volunteers. Look what happens. You have
a man like Benno Schmidt, who was first head of the president's cancer panel
under Nixon, then becomes head of MSK. He then goes on using the knowledge he
gained at MSK to set up his own drug company to make tens of millions of dollars. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>Another revolving door. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>You bet, and a big one. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">We have
had 50 years of American Cancer Society (ACS) brainwashing on the question of
cancer, so most people out there believe we are making progress in the war on
cancer. We are not, we are losing the war. The statistics... </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>1.7% increase in terms of success rate a year, its nothing </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
By the time we get to the 24 century we might have effective treatments, Star
Trek will be long gone by that time. It is not working, yet we have had this
infrastructure, the cancer establishment, imposed over this country for the
last 50 years. It is a fund raising machine. The ACS takes in 400 million dollars
a year. What are they doing with it? Where are the treatments? Where are the
cures? Where is the good research? They are way way way out, far, drifting out
to sea in terms of anything approaching human cancer. We have to re-orientate
ourselves around the actual patient in front of you. The only thing that matters
in cancer or any other disease. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Instead
we have this very abstract, academic, cruel, inhuman system which is now going
to be forced down our throats by government decree. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> I am
told the tobacco industry tries to influence the boards of directors of some
of these cancer hospitals. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>At MSK in New York we had two top executives of Philip Morris and one
of Nabisco on the board. You will not find much research being done on tobacco
at MSK. They are not interested in tobacco, that is old hat, they are interested
in P53 and other kind of weird genes that they find in their petri dishes. At
the Tish hospital at NYU (New York University), named after the Tish family
that is are chairman of the board. They own the Laura lard [sic] tobacco company,
so they giveth and taketh away. They are going to give you cancer and then they
will "cure" you of cancer, although they can't cure you. They will give you
3 months extra survival with vicious chemotherapy and call that a cure. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> I'd
rather die gracefully in my sleep. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
You bet. You better not smoke and then most of the lung cancer won't happen,
but that is one example of how the tobacco industry has infiltrated the medical
establishment. The bigger thing is the industrial interests. If you look at
the board of MSK you will find the who's who of the petro-chemical industry.
Why are they there? Again, very little research is done on the effect of chemicals
in causing cancer. We know that is probably one of the main things that causes
cancer -- petro-chemical pollution. But that is denied. Of course it's denied,
because the people who are paying the bill and directing cancer research have
a vested interest in keeping the scientists away from that area, and keeping
them focused on DRUG cures, things that can be patented, marketed and so forth,
and the FDA is in total collusion in this. They have set up a system where it
costs hundreds of millions of dollars to develop a new drug in the US. Well,
right there you know you are dealing with a monopoly situation. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> You
can't be a small company and afford those research bills. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
You can't get in. It is a poker game where the ante is a 100 million dollars. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Don't
we have anti-trust laws? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
We are supposed to, and I have gone to people in the anti-trust division of
the justice department. Their attitude is show us the smoking gun, in other
words we want to see the conspiracy. Well I don't have access to the yachts
off shore.. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> You
can see it. You have big business looking at cancer as a potential growth industry. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>You can come up with any results you want. You can buy the scientists
to do that research. There are hired hands out there to attack any non-toxic
treatment that you want to attack, and come up with some phoney results, give
people synthetic vitamins with carcinogens, and that proves that vitamins cause
cancer instead of curing cancer. You name it. If you have got the money you
can buy the minority of scientists who are corrupt, but they are out there.
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Basically
most people know how the data on the breast cancer study at the National Cancer
Institute was fudged. The question of whether lumpectomy was as good as mastectomy
is now in somewhat doubt, because of the fake data that was submitted to the
national surgical adjuvant and bowel project run out of the University of Pittsburgh.
This kind of corruption and fakery, and abuse of the public has been going on
as long as the war on cancer has been going on. The fact is that all of the
studies that have been supervised by the National Cancer Institute should now
be re-examined by congressional committees to see whether or not there is real
corruption in all of them. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> If
there was an even playing field some of the alternative therapies would shine. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>The Japanese are not afraid to look at things that are non-toxic. Here
we will look at natural things as long as they are more toxic than chemotherapy.
We don't want any competition. It would be unfair competition to have a less
toxic drug than chemotherapy because everyone would then flock to the less toxic
drug. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>What is really sick is the industry leaders value their bottom line more
than the well being and life of people. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
Yes, because we have set up a situation where it costs hundreds of millions
of dollars for a new drug. Once you have got a situation like that you
have got to have a patent on the drug. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> We
know that natural substances cannot be patented. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>If you want to change it, you change the law that establishes the need
for double blind clinical studies in drugs. You eliminate the efficacy clause
from the Harris amendment to the food and drug act, which Harris himself didn't
even want. This was imposed by the FDA and the drug industry. This upped the
ante and made a regulatory barrier. Now instead of it taking 1 million dollars
to establish the safety of a drug, you now need 300 million dollars. So none
of the small inventors, or the people with good ideas can ever hope to possibly
hope to get their drugs approved. They put you in administrative limbo where
the best you ever hope to get is this backburner simmering kind of thing, and
I know of a number of good scientists who have got IND's (Investigative New
Drug Applications) to test drugs, but when you try to market the drug they will
put you out of business, and Dr. Burzynski is the prime example. Brilliant scientist,
wonderful results in cancer, validated by the NCI, and yet he is on the verge
of federal indictment. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>If there is one thing you should pick up from this show tonight it's
this: If you ever get into a situation where a doctor recommends chemotherapy
to you or your family, ask to see the studies that the chemotherapy actually
extends the life of the patient. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> With
chemo you may be shortening your life, certainly be under discomfort, certainly
incurring huge costs. It can bankrupt you or your family. You have a right to
know </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>What are the actual toxicity? Go to a library to get a physicians desk
reference, or my chemotherapy report. I am continuously amazed. I was doing
some research due to my consultations on AM L-- a type of Leukemia, and the
treatment is so intense and toxic that in the older group that this particular
patient fell into, 40% die from the toxicity of the treatment. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> 40%
would have lived longer if they hadn't had the treatment. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>And the cure rate is miniscule, under 10%. It is terrible odds. In Las Vegas you wouldn't gamble with those odds unless you were crazy. The doctors
fudge the statistics. They are confounding and confusing different issues, the
response rate, the cure rate, the one year survival rate and so forth. Many
doctors don't know any better. They are afraid. The widest prairies have electric
fences and they are afraid to wander too close to the edge of their own field
to find out what is on the other side because they know from the example of
Dr. Jonathan Wright or Burzynski that if you stray too far from the herd you
are liable to bump into one of those electric fences. So there is a kind of
self censorship. I have seen this a hundred times. You talk to oncologists and
doctors, and they are individually open-minded and interested but as an aggregate
they will not move until their leadership moves because that is a very dangerous
thing for an oncologist to do. They would stand out too much, and they can't
afford to do that as they all depend on referrals from everyone else. So the minute you get branded as a "quack" -- it is a conformist world -- and
in the professions the peer pressure is what makes for success or failure. Nobody
wants to alienate their peers, so you don't stick your neck out or you will
get your head chopped off. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Lop
the tallest poppy. Where does good science happen? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Dr Gavalo in Russia who gets 75% five year survival in most carcinomas.
Unbelievable. CG hormone. Trophoblastic cells. Cancer is similar to pregnancy.
Cancer looks like a pregnancy. Dr Lance...isolate the blocking factor...analized
proteins...anti tumor necrosis factor...blocking factors of tumor...we dismount
immune system when pregnant... remove blocking proteins...3 patients with over
2 pounds of cancer...within 24 hours all dead...on autopsy they did not have
a single cancer cell...all gone in 48 hours...but kidneys could not handle it...they
did not know about detox...the word detox does not appear in the main textbook
on cancer or the main medical textbook...the word in medicine refers to heroin
addicts and getting them off heroin...they do not conceive that their are such
things as toxins created by a tumor...where do they think it all goes?...it
goes straight to the kidney, liver, lungs...Lentz learned to go slower... surgery
can reduce tumor load...this failure is more exciting than most of the success
I read about...it shows you how incredibly powerful the immune system is...it
is not just that people have failing immune systems...it is primarily that the tumor can evade the immune system...it does not see the tumor there...if you
make it visible it will go in and wipe it out....the Burton Clinic in the Bahamas
does this...Lentz did learn (1986) 2 patients who were terminal are still alive...in
1902 a man, Beard, discovered cancer is trophoblast, wrong time wrong place............cancer
is far too intelligent to submit to the raid approach of Allopathic medicine. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Other
research? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
Burzynski, only available in Texas. Some results are amazing, for example in
brain cancer. The NCI sent a team, finally, after we were asking them for 15
years, and validated the cases. I met one of the boys who was treated for a tumor about the size of pear in his brain. Within one month the tumor was
gone, and it is 3 years down the road, cancer free. He has damage from the radiation
treatment he received prior to that, he lost some of his hearing In non Hodgkinson
lymphoma I have a friend who had stage 4, went through chemo, radiation and
bone barrow transplant. He failed the bone marrow transplantation. More chemotherapy.
Read my book and found out about Dr Burzynski, and its 5 years, and he is completely
free of cancer... an amazing case.....he also took the whole "chicken soup"
of vitamins etc...why is this better than chemo?...it is very low toxicity </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #006600;">
</span>You are talking about not damaged immune systems but how the immune system
was fooled. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Exactly, but you still have to have an immune system. Chemo decreases
it. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>And you are going to die when some other germ comes along. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
Or another cancer comes along, which happens to about 10% of the people who
survive the chemotherapy, they develop a second cancer, and they will never
cure that one. It is almost impossible to cure. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Another
treatment COLEYS TOXINS which is one of the ones that excites me the most. This
is not generally available though I do know of ways to get it in different forms.
It was invented here like many of our alternative treatments and then they have
to go abroad to be used. There is a Coley's hospital in China. They can get
it in China but not here. It was discovered at MSK in 1893 and the results...over
a 1,000 people were treated with it. It is basically a high fever treatment.
Some guy rung a radio show I was on, he had a sarcoma that was operated on,
it spread, and his doctor sent him to Dr Coley. He was 13 at the time and 95
now. This is 82 years. Sarcoma is an incurable disease. A blow away treatment.
In advanced terminal breast cancer they got complete remissions in 50% of the
cases using this treatment. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> This
is criminal. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>That is not saying what you would get if you used it in conjunction with
surgery, you may get a 100% </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura Lee:</b>
</span>It is criminal that these are not incorporated into the standard procedures. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
You bet, it is criminal. I have known about this and lived with it for 20 years.
You know what? THEY know about it at Sloane Kettering. They even put Coleys
picture in their publicity material, as a pioneer of immunology, but they would
never use the treatment themselves. They want to develop DRUGS that can be spun
off like Tumor Necrosis Factor, like these other immunologically based drug
treatments, highly toxic, destructive of the immune system, incredibly expensive. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>It's big business. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Yes, he who pays the piper calls the tune, and the drug industry pays
the piper. Do you know what the MSK president makes? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><b> <span style="color: #cc6600;">Laura
Lee:</span></b></span><span style="font-size: small;">
$400,000? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
That's chicken feed. The president of MSK makes 2 million dollars a year, 2.2
million. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;">Coleys
toxins are bacteria that force the body to fever and kill them and the cancer
as well. Tumors are very poorly vascularized, so you disrupt their ability
to get nutrients and to get rid of wastes by raising the body temperature.....this
is really an effective treatment and it an OUTRAGEOUS crime of the century that
we at MSK were able to cure cancer a 100 years ago that they can't cure today.
This is a fraud being perpetrated on the public.... </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>Why isn't the New York Times writing about this? </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>The chairman of the board of Bristol Myers, the main company producing
anti-cancer drugs, who also happens to be on the board of MSK, is also on the
board of the New York Times. Everybody's brother in law is an oncologist, or
on the board of somebody else's something or other, so it is a money making
thing for the establishment. A hundred and seven billion, with a B, dollars
a year business, and we are not going to get rid of it easily. The point is
use your vote.... </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;">
</span>Or your mind </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b></span>
Or your mind, what a novel idea. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> Lets
work with it (cancer) rather than go out to stamp on it like a cockroach. </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> </span><span style="font-size: small;">
</span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"> <span style="color: #006600;"><b>Ralph Moss:</b>
</span>Chemotherapy is machismo practiced to the N'th degree. It is a war in
which you are the battleground, lucky you, I mean you have to treat your body
better than that. The folks that bring you the toxic chemicals that cause the
cancer are then kind enough to bring you toxic chemicals that allegedly..... </span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><br /></span></div>
<div align="left" style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">
<span style="font-size: small;"><span style="color: #cc6600;"><b>Laura
Lee:</b></span></span><span style="font-size: small;"> We
live in interesting times. </span></div>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-7329025622974099512011-09-10T23:12:00.000-04:002012-12-12T16:19:08.677-05:00Apricot Kernels - Dangerous Or Not?The word, 'Cyanide', is a scary word for most people. It conjures imaginations of dark glass bottles adorned with skulls and crossbones. It's no surprise, therefore, that this is the word used most in the efforts to steer the masses away from apricot kernels and amygdalin. If one reads the warnings and fear propaganda surrounding apricot kernels and amygdalin (vitamin B17), they'd be forgiven for making the assumption that hundreds of people come to harm from their consumption each year. One might even assume that hundreds of people have died from their consumption. So much time, money and energy has been spent warning of the dangers of apricot kernel consumption.<br />
<br />
If we search for evidence of harm resulting from the ingestion of apricot kernels, we discover that it is wildly and disproportionately absent. You'll struggle to find 10 medically documented reports after decades of use by hundreds of thousands of individuals. Would it surprise you to learn that, of those medically documented reports, death has never resulted? In most of these cases, irrational quantities of apricot kernels were used - quantities highly unlikely to be consumed by the majority of users. Treatment for acute toxicity is readily available, easily applied and has been 100% effective to date. <br />
<br />
In the United States each year, approximately 79,000 deaths result from excessive alcohol consumption, according to the CDC. Can you imagine how many people are admitted to hospital each week with alcohol poisoning all over the world? And yet, bitter apricot kernels, though evidently safe, are on the brink of illegality as a food.<br />
<br />
When the health authorities calculate risk based on theoretical data, as they've done with apricot kernels, they don't take into account the body's natural ability to
process amygdalin, nor the time-frame in which this happens. This is why they
recommend a person not consume more than 4 kernels per day. 4 kernels is the
quantity they believe could cause the first of any degree of side-effects, no matter how mild, in the
weakest, most susceptible person - this is the poor person for whom the quantity
guidelines are established. This person bears very little resemblance to the vast majority of likely users. This isn't explained to the public, of course. They're counting on the masses to use
their imaginations. For the uninitiated, this vision might involve dying or ending up in hospital after the consumption of just 5 apricot kernels. <br />
<br />
No medicine is one-size-fits-all. The same applies to apricot kernels. Apricot kernel consumption, when tailored to the individual's experience, is entirely safe. The body processes amygdalin in the space of roughly 1.5 hours. Once the amygdalin has been metabolized and its constituents processed, we can start from scratch. The authorities don't take this into consideration and their warnings and recommendations sniff of a massive discrepancy. This ultimately lends itself to conspiracy theory. A great many people are using between 40 and 60 kernels per day with absolutely no adverse reactions or side-effects whatsoever. They are doing this by adhering to sensible, smaller quantities their bodies can tolerate within each consumption session. <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-safe-dosage-practical.html">Read my post about safe dosage.</a><br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-29949820166375953982011-07-16T00:30:00.000-04:002012-08-21T00:44:51.347-04:00The Nitrilosides (Foods containing B-17)<br style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;" />
<span style="font-size: large;"><b><span style="font-family: Verdana,sans-serif;">Their Nature, Occurrence and Metabolic Significance</span></b></span><br />
<br />
<b>Ernst T. Krebs, Jr. </b><br />
<br />
<b>Reprinted from the Journal of Applied Nutrition, Volume 22, Numbers 3 and 4, 1970</b><br />
<br />
Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is a designation proposed to include a large
group of water-soluble, essentially non-toxic, sugary, compounds found
in over 800 plants, many of which are edible. These factors are collectively
known as Beta-cyanophoric glycosides. They comprise molecules made of sugar,
hydrogen cyanide, a benzene ring or an acetone. Though the intact molecule
is for all practical purposes completely non-toxic, it may be hydrolyzed
by Beta-glycosidase to a sugar, free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde or
acetone.
<br />
We have proposed the collective generic term n-i-t-r-i-l-o-s-i-d-e for
all such cyanophoric glycosides of dietary significance.<br />
<br />
One of the most common nitrilosides is amygdalin. This nitriloside occurs
in the kernels of seeds of practically all fruits. The seeds of apples,
apricots, cherries, peaches, plums, nectarines, and the like carry this
factor; often in the extraordinary concentration of 2 to 3 per cent. Since
the seeds of fruits are possibly edible, it may be proper to designate
the non-toxic water soluble accessory food factor or nitriloside that they
contain as vitamin B-17. The presence of nitriloside in the diet produces
specific physiologic effects and leaves as metabolites specific chemical
compounds of a physiologically active nature. The production by a non-toxic,
water-soluble accessory food factor of specific physiological effects as
well as identifiable metabolites suggests the vitamin nature of the compound.<br />
<br />
The ubiquity of the compound or its metabolites in plant and animal
foods further corroborates its vitamin status. And the development of specific
deficiency states as a result of its deficiency in or absence from the
diet, and the correction of such pathologic deficiency states by supplying
the factor confirm its vitamin status.<br />
<br />
The diet of primitive man and most fruit-eating animals was very rich
in nitrilosides. They regularly ate the seeds (and kernels) of all fruits,
since these seeds are rich in protein, polyunsaturated fats, and other
nutrients. Seeds also contain as much as 2 per cent or more nitriloside.
There are scores of other major foods naturally, or normally, very rich
in nitriloside. Let's consider now what happens when one eats the nitriloside-rich
seeds of fruit.<br />
<br />
In metabolism, nitriloside is hydrolyzed to free hydrogen cyanide, benzaldehyde
or acetone and sugar. This occurs largely through the enzyme Beta-glucosidase
produced by intestinal bacteria as well as by the body. The released HCN
[hydrocyanide] is detoxified by the enzyme rhodanese to the relatively
non-toxic thiocyanate molecule. The sugar is normally metabolized. The
released benzaldehyde in the presence of oxygen is immediately oxidized
to benzoic acid which is non-toxic. Thus this newly designated vitamin
B-17 (nitriloside) could account for:
<br />
<ol>
<li>
The thiocyanates in the body fluids--blood, urine, saliva, sweat, and tears;</li>
<li>
For part of the benzoic acid (and subsequently hippuric acid); salicylic
acid isomers;</li>
<li>
For the HCN that goes to the production of cyanocobalamin from hydrocobalamin,
or production of vitamin B<sub>12</sub> from provitamin B<sub>12</sub>.</li>
</ol>
These are the physiological properties of the common nitriloside amygdalin.
Before considering the possible antineoplastic activity of this vitamin
B-17, let us recall that the benzoic acid arising from it has certain antirheumatic
and antiseptic properties. It was rather widely used (in Germany and elsewhere)
for rheumatic disease therapy prior to the advent of the ortho-hydroxy
addition product of benzoic acid known as ortho-hydroxybenzoic acid or
salicylic acid. It was originally obtained from beech-wood bark. As a matter
of interest, the para- hydroxy isomer of benzoic acid occurs in the para
hydroxybenzaldehyde aglycon (non-sugar) of the nitriloside found in the
cereal millet. Millet was once more widely used in human nutrition than
wheat. Wheat seed contains little or no nitriloside.<br />
<br />
Recall now, that thiocyanate also was once widely used, in both Germany
and American medicine, as an effective agent for hypertension. Used as
such, as the simple chemical, the dosage was difficult to control. Obviously,
this difficulty does not arise from the thiocyanate usually produced in
the body through metabolizing vitamin B-17 (nitriloside). However, chronic
hypotension has been reported in Nigerians who eat quantities of the nitriloside-containing
manioc (cassava)--especially that of the bitter variety.<br />
<br />
Let us pause to reflect upon this question: Might not the rheumatic
diseases as well as certain aspects of hypertension be in some cases partially
related to a dietary deficiency in nitrilosides? One can hardly deny that
the ingestion of a sufficient quantity of nitriloside-containing foods
will metabolically yield sufficient benzoic acid and/or salicylic acid
isomers to palliate rheumatic disease and certainly to decrease, however
temporarily, hypertension as well as to foster the nitrilosation of provitamin
B-12 to active vitamin B-12: cyanocobalamin.<br />
<br />
Despite all this, are we justified in suggesting that cancer itself
might be another chronic metabolic disease that arises from a specific
vitamin deficiency--a deficiency specifically in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside)?<br />
<br />
Again, let us reflect for a moment. There are many chronic or metabolic
diseases that challenge medicine. Many of these diseases have already been
conquered. What proved to be their solution? By solution we mean both prevention
and cure. What really cures really prevents. Let us think of some of these
diseases that have found total prevention and hence cure. We are speaking
of metabolic or non-transmissible diseases. At one time the metabolic disease
known as scurvy killed hundreds of thousands of people, sometimes entire
populations. This disease found total prevention and cure in the ascorbic
acid or vitamin C component of fruits and vegetables. Similarly, the once
fatal diseases so aptly called pernicious anemia, pellagra, beri beri,
countless neuropathies, and the like, found complete cure and prevention
in specific dietary factors, that is, essential nutrients in an adequate
diet.<br />
<br />
I can hear an objection of course. But let me remind you that <i>all</i>
the <i>solved</i> or conquered chronic or metabolic diseases were found
to be simple specific dietary diseases. Remember this: before these diseases
were understood, before the means of total prevention and cure were discovered,
it was widely believed that these dietary deficiency diseases were due
to viruses, bacteria, bad air, "infection," or some such cause.<br />
<br />
Now I ask you to name a single chronic or metabolic disease that has
ever found total prevention and cure except by specific dietary factors
and/or factors normal to adequate animal economy. I have never found anyone
who has been able to suggest a single chronic or metabolic disease that
has ever been totally prevented and cured except through a factor essential
to adequate diet and/or to the animal economy.<br />
<br />
Let's go a step further, almost to the border of dogmatism, to advance
an axiom in medicine and biology:
<br />
<blockquote>
No chronic or metabolic disease has ever found cure or prevention,
that is, real cure and real prevention--except through factors essential
to an adequate diet and/or normal to animal economy.</blockquote>
I would welcome a contradiction to this principle; but even an exception
would "prove the rule."
Does it seem likely, therefore, that cancer will be the first exception
to this generalization that to date has not had a single known exception?
In my humble opinion, certainly not. But does it follow from this that
vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is the specific antineoplastic vitamin? Logically,
by itself, alone, this conclusion that nitriloside is <i>the</i> specific
antineoplastic vitamin does not follow. However, examine the brilliant
laboratory studies of Dr. Dean Burk of the Department of Cytochemistry
of the National Cancer Institute in Washington. I believe that in light
of the experimental evidence that he has produced, you might agree that
vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is indeed <i>the</i> antineoplastic vitamin.*<br />
<br />
One might ask, then, whether we suggest that vitamin B-17 (nitriloside)
or Laetrile is an effective cancer drug. Our reply must be: it is not a
drug; it is a
<br />
--------------------------
<br />
<br />
*Author's footnote: Dr. Dean Burk's paper was in the same program,
also a report on the pharmacodynamics and clinical application of vitamin
B-17 nitriloside (amygdalin) by Dr. Hans Nieper, a brilliant young man
who combines an excellent ability in biochemistry with a genius in clinical
medicine, in my opinion.<br />
<br />
Page 78<br />
<br />
vitamin. We feel certain that it will never be possible to speak of
a true or effective "cancer drug," any more that it is possible to speak
of a pellagra drug, a scurvy drug, a pernicious anemia drug, or the like.
The U.S. Food & Drug Administration has just announced that the major
<i>drug</i> (as contrasted to the normal animal product insulin) used in
the palliation of diabetes--Orinase--is "no good." We know of no true drug
that actually prevents or cures metabolic or chronic diseases--or really
does any genuine good. We mean by "<i>drug</i>," of course, relatively
toxic chemicals foreign to the body or foreign to the animal economy.<br />
<br />
As already mentioned, vitamin B-17 (Laetrile) is totally non-toxic.
Its lethal dose in mice and rats, by injection, is about 25,000 milligrams
per kilogram of body weight. It is so nearly non-toxic that in some studies
the water, used as a diluent, presents a greater toxicity than the vitamin.
This applies for acute, subacute and chronic toxicity. By mouth in test
animals it is less than 1/20 as toxic as aspirin. Speaking of aspirin,
let us recall that this great German discovery, the acetylation product
of ortho-hydroxy benzoic acid, and some salicylic acid isomers, as well
as benzoic acid itself, are the normal metabolites of dietary nitrilosides
found in the seeds of nearly all fruits and some cereals. For example,
millet, mentioned above, once more widely used than wheat, yields the salicylic
acid isomer para-hydroxybenzoic acid, which arises as the metabolic product
of its nitriloside: p-hydroxymandelonitrile-B-glucoside. In this you can
discern, however dimly, the dietary-therapeutic profile of the salicylates
as a means of satisfying a dietary deficiency in benzoic acid and the related
salicylic acid isomers.<br />
<br />
Returning to the non-toxicity of nitriloside; it is no more toxic than
dextrose or ascorbic acid--and to the diabetic less toxic than the former.<br />
<br />
I have noticed that newspapers are carrying wire dispatches reporting
the studies of Professor Roger Williams of the University of Texas. He
is quoted on the "toxicity" of commercial white bread as sold in the United
States. You will recall that Doctor Williams is the discoverer of vitamin
B-1 or thiamine; and the first to synthesize it. Doctor Williams, in effect,
showed that commercial white bread as sold in the United States is about
70 times more toxic than vitamin B-17. Doctor Williams fed four strains
of white rats (noted for their vigor), nothing but commercial American
white bread for three months. Seventy-five per cent of all the experimental
animals so fed died of malnutrition before the experiment was complete.
Those fed on whole wheat all survived. The commercial white bread was enriched
by law with some crystalline vitamins, but not in a sufficient quantity
and variety to prevent these rats being killed by the bread. So how about
vitamin B-17 toxicity studies? White rats fed 70 times the normal human
dose of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) used in the palliation of human cancer
were completely normal and healthy after 90 days. None of them died. There
were some "physiological side reactions" to vitamin B-17--greater weight
and appetite. After all they were receiving nourishment; a vitamin, not
a vitamin-deficient ration or a drug.<br />
<br />
The rats that died from eating commercial white bread--all 75 per cent
of them--died as a direct result of a deficiency in vitamins found in the
whole grain of wheat. There was the deficiency in vitamin E as a result
of the missing germ or seed of the wheat, a deficiency of choline, vitamin
B-15 (pangamic acid), vitamin B-6, biotin and other factors as a result
of the missing bran taken from highly refined bleached white flour. Recall
that the natural whole grain of wheat is composed of the starchy endosperm
or bulk of the grain as well as the germ or the seed which carries the
oils in which are dissolved the tocopherols or vitamin E; and the bran
which contains an abundance of the B vitamins.<br />
<br />
Those rats died from a vitamin deficiency produced by eating less than
the whole grain, the whole food. When civilized man eats less than the
whole fruit, for example, by discarding the seed or kernel he experiences
a specific and total deficiency not only in oils and proteins but in minerals
and such vitamins as vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) which is found only in
the seed, not in the flesh of the fruit. By discarding the seed or kernel,
man experiences a specific and total deficiency in vitamin B-17 so far
as that fruit is concerned. Let me remind you that were man by circumstance
limited to no source of food but apricots, peaches, plums, cherries and
the like and ate only their fruit without their seeds he would in a short
time develop a fatal deficiency in proteins and fats not to mention vitamins.
He would die from this deficiency just as the white rats died from the
deficiency produced by eating only the starch of wheat without the seed
germ and bran. But if he ate the seeds or kernels <i>with</i> the fruit
flesh, he would get proteins, fats and other nutrients essential to health.<br />
<br />
Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) is also found in great abundance in a very
wide variety of vegetable foods once eaten in great abundance by man, and
the natural fodder of animals is similarly rich in the factor. In a paper
which I hope to publish soon, I have listed over 62 plant foods eaten by
man and over 70 common fodder plants that are very rich in vitamin B-17
(nitriloside). Their concentration of this vitamin compares favorably with
that of vitamin C (ascorbic acid) so far as quantity and ubiquity are concerned.
As in the case of many other vegetables, sprouts may contain 10 to 30 times
as much vitamin B-17 as mature plants. It is not practicable to furnish
here the several hundred references of the basic research on nitrilosides
nor to list extensive tables showing the occurrence of this new vitamin
in a wide range of foods. It would not be germane to explain the reasons
why and how "modern diet" has been almost totally stripped of nitrilosides.
Suffice it to say that the factors that made commercial white bread lethal
to rats and gave the world the empty calories of refined white sugar also
have served to produce a fulminating deficiency in vitamin B-17 (nitriloside)
in the diet of so called civilized man.<br />
<br />
So much for the specific nutritional aspect of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside).
How can a compound that is totally non-toxic be relevant to a disease as
serious as cancer, a disease perhaps as lethal as pernicious anemia once
was? Would we not expect that very powerful cytotoxic compounds would be
required to destroy cancer cells? Would these not be compounds like the
nitrogen mustards, the antimetabolites, the cyclophosphoramides, methotrexate,
5-fluoruracil, 6-chloropurine, 6-mercaptopurine, azaserine, triethlyenphosphramide,
the nitrosoguanidines, and countless other compounds so toxic that some
kill almost 25 per cent of the patients treated directly or indirectly
through toxicity alone?<br />
<br />
It is true that neoplastic cells are destroyed by cytotoxins. The cytotoxins
used so far, the ones I have mentioned, are more toxic to body or somatic
cells than specifically to cancer cells. This is obvious. Otherwise we
would be able to administer these cytotoxins until they killed all cancer
cells and left the host alive. But they <i>almost</i> always, if not always,
kill the host before killing the neoplastic cells. In the problem of neoplastic
therapy we have in drugs an almost insoluble paradox. For an agent to be
effective it must be both non-toxic to somatic cells and yet present powerful
cytotoxins to neoplastic cells--cytotoxins like the cyanides and benzaldehyde.<br />
<br />
Vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) releases a specific and powerful cytotoxin,
probably the most powerful one known. This is hydrogen cyanide. Our formulation
of Laetrile also releases an equimolar quantity of benzaldehyde which,
before oxidation to benzoic acid, is a very powerful cytotoxin. We have
here two very powerful cytotoxins. Doctor Dean Burk of the National Cancer
Institutue has brilliantly demonstrated, largely through utilization of
the technics and manometer of Otto Warburg, that the benzaldehyde released
by the hydrolysis of nitriloside or Laetrile is not only in itself a powerful
cytotoxin but that it multiplies through a very powerful synergy the cytotoxic
effects of <i>both</i>--cyanide and benzaldehyde--to an extent many, many
times greater than the arithmetic sum of their separate effects.<br />
<br />
These two compounds in synergy are more powerful cytotoxins than any
of those that I have already mentioned above.<br />
<br />
Why isn't the equimolecular quantity of benzaldehyde oxidized immediately
by the cancer cells to harmless benzoic acid as occurs in body or somatic
cells, and why isn't the equimolecular quantity of cyanide converted immediately
to thiocyanate as it is in body or somatic cells? Recall that Otto Warburg
himself received one Nobel Prize for proving the suboxidative activity
of cancer cells. They ferment--fermentative metabolism rather than respiratory
metabolism plays a large role in cancer. This metabolism utilizes less
oxygen (in the free state); therefore, oxidation of benzaldehyde occurs
much more slowly. Unoxidized benzaldehyde lags, as it were, in the neoplastic
cell. This cell also lacks a very important enzyme possessed by body or
somatic cells. This enzyme is rhodanese or thiosulfate transulfurase. It
convert cyanide to the harmless thiocyanate. With the <i>selective</i>
lag of <i>both</i> undetoxified cyanide as well as unoxidized benzaldehyde
in the neoplastic cell, and the multiplication of cytotoxicity that the
combination affords, the neoplastic cells suffer a lethal cytotoxicity
while the hostal or somatic cells are totally unaffected--except possibly
in a beneficial or physiological manner. We <i>are </i>dealing with a vitamin,
remember.<br />
<br />
Pause again to reflect. Is it possible that this described cytotoxic
<i>synergy </i>arising from the hydrolysis product of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside),
is a coincidental or fortuitous phenomenon--a synergy totally ungrounded
in any other biological experience, a pure accident? Or does this synergy
represent the end product of the enduring effects of a process of natural
selection between plants and animals through which a specific antineoplastic
vitamin, vitamin B-17, has evolved in a natural environment once as abundantly
rich in nitrilosides as in ascorbic acid?<br />
<br />
There is no controversy, of course, on the fact that equimolecular quantities
of benzaldehyde and cyanide resulting from the hydrolysis of vitamin B-17
will selectively kill cancer cells. The cytotoxicity of these chemicals
against neoplastic cells is known, but the margin of safety for these <i>raw
</i>chemicals is very little greater than the most powerful cytotoxins--except
that different from the latter there is no residual, cumulative or chronic
toxicity from them. Contrast this to the utter non-toxicity of these same
chemicals bound in the white sugary nitriloside molecule.<br />
<br />
Wherein, then, is there a controversy over this vitamin in therapy?
Though the major and practically sole controversy is and has always been
a political one, if we were to try to pin-point a specific scientific criticism
it would probably be this: what real or experimental proof is there that
the nitriloside molecule is <i>selectively</i> hydrolysed or broken down
to free cyanide, benzaldehyde and sugar at and by the neoplastic lesion?
It is, of course, a commonplace-now almost a century old--that the nitriloside
is split to its 3 major components by the enzyme Beta-glucosidase. It is
also known that the malignant lesion contains a high concentration of certain
Beta-glycosidases (e.g., Beta glucuronidase). The proponents of vitamin
B-17 for the prevention and palliation of cancer have long argued inferentially
for the presence of specific Beta-glucosidase activity in the malignant
lesion, which would account or its selective lysis here with the release
of the admittedly highly cytotoxic HCN and benzaldehyde in synergy.<br />
<br />
The opponents of vitamin B-17 in cancer therapy have rather myopically,
(I believe), argued that there is no proof that selective hydrolysis of
the nitriloside occurs in the neoplastic cell. They reject all existing
clinical evidence, however impressive, for this effect. Thus it is an extraordinarily
important finding that Doctor Dean Burk reports on his observation of the
effect of the incubation of C3H mouse mammary cancer with vitamin B-17
in the Warburg manometer. He reports that the malignant mammary tissue
selectively hydrolyzes the added nitriloside to free cyanide, benzaldehyde
and sugar with a highly effective cytotoxicity; and that this does <i>not</i>
occur in benign or somatic control mammary tissue! This experimental observation
means, of course, that the neoplastic tissue carries a specific Beta-glucosidase
activity that normal or somatic tissue lacks, which lack here is obvious
in view of the total non-toxicity of the material toward normal tissue.
This very crucial experiment will, of course, be repeated and checked and
rechecked in many laboratories.<br />
<br />
Let us in summary simplify all this in terms of vitamin action. When
vitamin B-17 enters the body (in foods, for example), it is hydrolyzed
only to a very slight degree by body or somatic cells. This is obvious
from the non-toxicity shown by B-17. But even if some of the B-17 is hydrolyzed
by body or somatic cells, the very high concentration of the enzyme rhodanese
in these cells converts the HCN immediately to relatively non-toxic thiocyanate.
(This accounts largely for the thiocyanate that you find in blood, urine,
saliva, etc., as stated above).<br />
<br />
How different it is with the neoplastic cell! It contains great quantities
of Beta-glycosidase. Fischman and many others in America have independently
shown this in the case of Beta-glucuronidase. Sometimes there is over 1,000
times as much of this Beta-glycosidase as in the contiguous normal or body
cell. The neoplastic cell is almost completely deficient in the enzyme
rhodanese. Recalll that when B-17 reaches the cancer cell the Beta-glycosidase
there hydrolyzes it with the release of extremely large quantities of cyanide
(relative to the situation in normal body cells). This selective effect
occurs in a cell that is almost totally deficient in the enzyme rhodanese,
which in normal body cells is present to detoxify cyanide to thiocyanate.
Thus the end result of the presence of one enzyme that causes the selective
release of hydrogen cyanide in cancer cells, plus an oxidative deficiency
(fermentative metabolism) that causes a lag in benzaldehyde oxidation to
benzoic acid, result in the selective persistence of free or undetoxified
cyanide plus free or unoxidized benzaldehyde which synergistically exert
their selective antineoplastic effect.<br />
<br />
A discussion of the clinical details of vitamin B-17, nitriloside in
animal and human cancer is best left to our clinical students of the subject.
They are faced with the fact that today more people per 100,000 of the
population are developing cancer and dying from it at an earlier age than
any other time in recorded history of the human race. At least one in three
of the population develops clinical cancer and probably all develop subclinical
neoplasms in the course of a lifetime. The situation, in our opinion, almost
identifies itself in terms of a fulminating deficiency disease <i>a priori</i>.
As our veterinary friends tell us, even our cats and dogs are showing an
incidence of cancer parallel to that of their "civilized" owners. Observe
how quickly these animals when released from an apartment or kennel will
single out (and eat) such nitriloside-rich grasses as Johnson grass, Tunis
grass or Sudan grass as a supplement to their diet. Some of these grasses
contain as much as 17,000 mg of nitriloside per kilogram of dry weight!<br />
<br />
In this presentation we have attempted to touch a vast and relatively
unexplored area. But before closing let me introduce a little Yankee humor.
It may be sick humor: judge for yourselves. We know of the white bread
that will kill 75 per cent of hearty rats in 90 days, of calorie-free white
sugar, of cola drinks, of fulminating vitamin deficiencies, and the like.
But in the United States there is one "school of nutritional thought" that,
despite all this, sought to append the following statement to the labels
of all bottles of vitamins:
<br />
<blockquote>
"Vitamins and minerals are supplied in abundant amounts by
the foods we eat. The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Research
Council recommends that dietary needs be satisfied by foods. Except for
persons with special needs, there is no scientific basis for recommending
routine use of dietary supplements."</blockquote>
The lethal commercial white bread is by law supplemented, but not supplemented
enough not to kill the rats. It is argued, of course, that this won't hurt
man too much unless he relies almost solely on this staff of life and is
no tougher than the rats!<br />
<br />
Lest this new vitamin B-17 or nitriloside still be a less concrete reality
in your mind than ascorbic acid, thiamine, niacin or the like, let me leave
you with an example of a daily ration or diet remarkably rich in nitriloside
or vitamin B-17. For breakfast we start with buckwheat, millet and flax-seed
gruel; all three cereals are very rich in nitriloside. On our millet bread
toast we put some nitriloside rich elderberry jelly. The stewed apricots
we eat carry the nitriloside-rich seeds, which we detect through their
delicious almond-like flavor. At lunch we have nitriloside-rich lima beans
or possibly a succotash containing nitriloside-rich chick peas. Our millet
rolls may be spread with plum jam carrying the nitriloside-rich seeds that
add so much to the flavor of the jam. We may choose some nitriloside-rich
elderberry wine. For dinner we may have a salad with some nitriloside-rich
bean sprouts and nitriloside-rich millet sprouts. Our dinner rolls may
be made of nitriloside-rich buckwheat and nitriloside-rich millet and sweetened
with nitriloside-rich sorghum molasses extracted from sorghum cane--almost
all of the foregoing are very rich in nitrilosides. For our meat course
we may have rabbet that fed on nitriloside-rich clover and as a result
carries 5 to 10 times more thiocyanate and nitriloside than animals not
so fed. If the milk we drink came from cows that ate fodder rich in nitrilosides
this milk will contain as much as 7 times more nitriloside than a cow living
on nitriloside-deficient fodder. At the end of the dinner we may choose
a nitriloside-rich apricot, peach, cherry, or plum brandy originally prepared
from crushing the entire or whole fruit. We may also choose a number of
wild berries very rich in nitrilosides--all members of the raspberry family.
We may nibble on some nitriloside-rich macadamia nuts or chew nitriloside-rich
bamboo sprouts.<br />
<br />
In such a menu of three meals in the course of a day we should ingest
over 300 mg of nitriloside or vitamin B-17 in our foods--every one of which
contained nitriloside. The quantities of the vitamin B-17 in the described
foods have been very carefully determined by independent workers over the
years. Because of our cultural antipathy to cyanide, our food technology
has made every conceivable effort through processing, hybridizing, distilling,
etc., to remove every trace of derivable cyanide from foods for man and
animals. It is good that this irrationality has not to date, at least,
completely removed the cyanide-containing vitamin B-12 or cyanocobalamin.<br />
<br />
Finally, let me conclude with this. In nitriloside or vitamin B-17 we
have a new vitamin in which all of us are severely deficient. This fact
is beyond question. As to the clinical application of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside)
in human and animal cancer, we feel that every case is morally entitled
to whatever vitamin B-17 can offer, just as every being stricken with scurvy,
pellagra, or pernicious anemia is morally entitled, respectively, to vitamin
C, niacin, vitamin B-12 and folic acid. Indeed, the matter goes far beyond
clinical cancer itself. Mankind can not afford any longer a human and animal
population deficient in vitamin C, vitamin B-12, vitamin B-15, vitamin
B-17 or <i>any other vitamin essential to animal or human nutrition.</i><br />
<i> </i>
<br />
However, the capacity of political power for stupidity is truly infinite.
We can not predict how long the orderly clinical study of crystalline vitamin
B-17 will be delayed. But take some comfort in this. Were vitamin B-12
and folic acid completely proscribed tomorrow, liver would still offer
complete salvation in pernicious anemia. Similarly, one gram of defatted
apricot seed or kernel carries about 30 milligrams of nitriloside. Six
or seven teaspoonful will supply what our clinical investigators consider
an adequate oral dose--one gram. It is best that the B-glucosidase enzyme
be completely heat inactivated in such material.<br />
<br />
So far as other parts of the world may be concerned, I fear no such
described obstruction. In Germany I was very happy to find from four to
five proprietary and ethical brands of vitamin B-15 (pangamic acid), or
its DIPA analogue, and I look forward to seeing a similar distribution
of vitamin B-17 (nitriloside) very soon. In visiting the great museum in
Hanover I was pleased to find in a display of food-stuffs recovered from
Stone Age digging in Europe that of eight food plants shown, three of them
are heavy nitriloside-producers. One was Himbeere (Rubus idaeus), another
Brombeere (Rubus fruiticosus) and Schwarzer Hollunder (Sambucus niger)
or the common elderberry (from which the nitriloside sambunigrin was originally
isolated). In the United States the Lovelock Caves in Nevada have yielded
petrified animal and human faeces (fecoliths) that through carbon-dating
have been found to go back many years. They showed numerous remnants of
nitriloside-bearing plants.<br />
<br />
Just as the German chemists Huber and Weidel in 1873 first synthesized
niacin through the oxidation of nicotine about forty years after Wohler
and Liebig in your country first isolated and identified the first nitriloside,
amygdalin, and just as niacin was destined half a century later to be identified
and defined as the factor that prevents and cures pellagra in man, so we
find that the nitriloside isolated and identified over a century ago in
Germany likewise is now achieving the status of a vitamin--vitamin B-17.
Let us hope that like niacin it has at least left the chemical museum to
serve the impelling needs of improved nutrition.<br />
<br />
<center>
</center>
<center>
<b>Ernst Theodor Krebs, Jr.</b></center>
A noted biochemist, Ernst Krebs, Jr. took his student work at Hahnemann
Medical College in Philadelphia 1938-41. He received his AB at the University
of Illinois in 1942; he did graduate work at the University of California
during 1943-45, researching in pharmacology during the periods of 1942-45.
He is science director of the John Beard Memorial Foundation, having held
this position since 1946. He is the author of "Unitarian or Trophoblastic
Thesis of Cancer" (1950); co-discoverer of pangamic acid (1948), the role
of pancreatic enzymes in human cancer (1948-50), and the relevance of the
nitrilosides (Vitamin B-17) to animal and human nutrition.
<br />
This paper is a summary of remarks presented in German before a congress
of the International Medical Society for Blood and Tumor Disease, Nov.
7, 1970, in Baden-Baden, West Germany. On this occasion, the author received
an award honoring his discovery and research on vitamin B-15 (pangamic
acid) and vitamin B-17 (nitriloside).<br />
<br />
<center>
</center>
<center>
<b>BIBLIOGRAPHY</b></center>
A partial bibiliography is printed here. A complete listing of references
will follow in a subsequent issue.<br />
<br />
<center>
</center>
<center>
<b>REFERENCES</b></center>
<br />
<br />
<br />
<li>
Baker, J.E., Rainey, D.P., Norris, D.M., and Strong, F.N., p-Hydroxybenzaldehyde
and other Phenolics as Feeding Stimulants for the Smaller European Bark
Bettle, <i>Forest Sci.</i>, 14(1):91-95, 1968.</li>
<br />
IV. Occurrence of Phaseolunatin in Common Flax
<br />
V. Occurrence of Phaseolunatin in Cassava,<i>Proc.Roy.Soc.</i>, 1906,
78B, 145-158.
<br />
II. The Great Millet, Sorghum vulgare, <i>Phil.Trans.Roy.Soc.</i>,199A:
399-410, 1902.
<br />
VI. Phaseolunatin and the Associated Enzymes in Flax, Cassava, and
the Lima Bean, <i>Proc.Roy.Soc.</i>, 79B: 315-322, 1907.
<br />
[Note: this article was transcribed from the original by R.S. Cathey
with permission from E.T. Krebs, Jr., as well as all papers by Krebs on
this site. The bibliography was derived from The Nitrilosides in
Plants and Animals, as the original lacked a bibliography. Since
the authorites coincide in many places, this was resorted to lacking one
offered by the author "upon request". rsc]
<br />
<br />
<br />
<li>
Blum, M.S., and Woodring, J.P., Secretion of Benzaldehyde and Hydrogen
Cyanide by the <i>Millipede Pachydemus crassicutus</i> (Wood), <i>Science</i>,
158: 512-513, 1962.</li>
<li>
Briese, R.R., and Couch, J.F., Preservation of Cyanogenetic Plants for
Chemical Analysis, <i>J.Agr.Research</i>, 57(2): 81-107, 1937.</li>
<li>
Brown, W.E., Wood, C.D., and Smith, A.N., Sodium Cyanide as a Cancer Chemotherapeutic
Agent -- Laboratory and Clinical Studies, <i>Am.J.Obst. & Gynec.</i>,
80: 907-918, 1960.</li>
<li>
Browne, J.G., Progress Report on the Work Done on the Hydrocyanic Acid
Content of California Grown Lima Beans, <i>Univ. Calif. Coll. of Agr.,
Agr. Exptl. Station</i>, Project No. 521, p. 770 et seq., June 17, 1932.</li>
<li>
Brioux, and Jones, E., The Production of Cyanogenetic Glycosides by Linseed:
Measurement of HCN Production, <i>Ann. Agron.</i>, 8(4): 468-480, 1932.</li>
<li>
Chappel, C., Toxicity Studies on Amygdalin, McNaughton Foundation, Montreal,
Canada, 1967, p.2.</li>
<li>
Charlton, J., The Selection of Burma Beans for Low Hydrocyanic Acid Content,
<i>Memoirs Dept. Agr. India Chemical Series</i>, 9(1), 1926-1928.</li>
<li>
Dedolph, R.R., and Hamilton, R.A., The Bitterness Problem in Some Seedling
Macadamias (Due to amygdalin -- ed.), <i>Hawaii Farm. Sci.</i>, 8(1): 7-8,
1959.</li>
<li>
Delga, J., Mizoula, J., Veverka, B., and Bon, R., Studies on the Treatment
of Cyanide Intoxication by Hydroxycobalamin (Provitamin B-12), <i>Ann.
Pharmaceut.</i>, 19(12): 740-752, 1961.</li>
<li>
Dillemann, G., Hydrocyanic Acid in Hybrids of the Pear with the Quince,
<i>Bull. Museum Natl. Hist. Nat.</i>, 18: 465-467, 1946.</li>
<li>
Doak, B.W., Cyanoglucosides in White Clover, <i>New Zealand J.Agr.</i>,
51: 159-162, 1935.</li>
<li>
Domingues, J.B., Hydrocyanic Acid in Shoots of <i>Dendrocalamus giganteus</i>
(Bamboo), <i>An.Fac.Farm.</i>, E. Odontal Univ., Sao Paulo, 13: 169-171,
1955-1956.</li>
<li>
Dunstan, W.R., Henry, T.A., and Auld, S.J.M., Cyanogenesis</li>
<li>
Dunstan, W.R., and Henry, T.A., and Auld, S.J.M., Cyanogenesis in Plants</li>
<li>
Dunstan, W.R., Henry, T.A., and Auld, S.J.M., Cyanogenesis</li>
<li>
Ekpechi, O.L., Dimitriadoo, A., and Fraser, R., Goitrogentic Activity of
Cassava (A Staple Nigerian Food), <i>Nature</i>, 5041: 1137, June 11, 1966.</li>
<li>
Festenstein, G.U., Substrates for Rumen Beta-Glucosidase, <i>Biochem. J.</i>,
70(1): 49-51, 1958.</li>
<li>
Flux, D.S., Butler, G.W., Johnson, J.M., Glenday, A.C., and Petersen, G.B.,
Goitrogenic Effects of White Clover, <i>New Zealand J.of Sci. and Tech.</i>,
38(A): 88-102, 1956.</li>
<li>
Flux, D.S., Butler, G.W., Rae, A.L., and Brougham, R.W., Relationship between
Levels of Iodine and Cyanogenetic Glucoside in Pasture and the Performance
of Sheep, <i>J.Agric.Soc.</i>, 55(2): 191-196, 1960.</li>
<li>
Golse, J., New Method for the Determination of Hydrocyanic Acid and Benzaldehyde
in Cherry Brandy, <i>J.Phar.Chim.</i>, 12:44-65, 1915.</li>
<li>
Greshoff, M., The Distribution of Prussic Acid (HCN) in the Vegetable Kingdom,
<i>Report Brit.Assn.</i>, 138-144, 1906.</li>
<li>
Guignard, L., The Development of Cyanogenetic Glucosides During the Germination
of Plants, <i>Compt.rend.</i>, 147: 1023-1038, 1908.</li>
<li>
Guignard, L., The Presence of Cyanide-Yielding Compounds in the Elderberry,
<i>Compt.rend.</i>, 141: 16-20, 1905.</li>
<li>
Herissey, H., The Cyanogenetic Glycoside Prulsurasin Crystallized from
the Leaves of the Cherry Laurel, <i>Compt.rend.</i>, 141: 959-961, 1905.</li>
<li>
James, M.B., Fleming, J.W., and Bailey, L.F., Cyanide as a Growth-Inhibiting
Substance in Extracts of Peach Leaves, <i>Proc.Amer.Soc.Hort. Sci.</i>,
69: 152-157, 1957.</li>
<li>
Jones, M.B., Seasonal Trend of Cyanide in Peach Leaves and Flower Buds
and Its Possible Relation to the Rest Period.<i>Proc. amer.Soc.Hort.Sci.</i>,
77: 117-120, 1961.[nee Jones?, rsc]</li>
<li>
Liebig, J., and Wohler, F., The Composition of Bitter Almonds,<i>Annalen</i>,
22(1): 1-24, 1837.</li>
<li>
Liebig, J., and Wohler, F., Formation of the Oil of Bitter Almonds, <i>Ann.Chim.Phys.</i>,
64: 185-209, 1837.</li>
<li>
Luh, B.S., and Pinochet, M.F., Spectrophotometric Determination of Hydrogen
Cyanide in Canned Apricots, Cherries and Prunes, <i>Food Research</i>,
24: 423-427, 1950.</li>
<li>
Martin, J.H., Couch, J.F., and Briese, R.R., Hydrocyanic Acid Content of
Different Parts of the Sorghum Plant, <i>Jour.Amer.Soc.Agron.</i>, 30(9):
725-734, 1938.</li>
<li>
Michajlovski, M., Stukovsky, R., and Nemeth, S., Effects of Feed Composition
on the Thiocyanate Content of Cow Milk, <i>Biologica</i>(<i>Broteslavia</i>),
16: 459-468, 1961.</li>
<li>
Monekosso, G.L., and Wilson, J., Plasma Thyocyanate and Vitamin B-12 in
Nigerian Patients with Neurological Disease, <i>Lancet</i>, No. 7446: 1062-1064,
1966.</li>
<li>
McIlroy, "The Plant Glycosides," Edward Arnold & Co., London, 1951,
pp.21-22.</li>
<li>
Oke, O.L., Chemical Studies of Some Nigerian Vegetables, <i>Exp.Agr.</i>,
1(2): 125-129, 1965.</li>
<li>
Osborne, D., Solving the Riddle of Wetherhill Mesa, <i>Natl.Geo.Mag.</i>,
125(2): 155-194, 1964.</li>
<li>
Perry, I.H., The Effect of Prolonged Cyanide Treatment on Body and Tumor
Growth in Rats, <i>Am.J.Cancer</i>, 25: 592-[ff.],1935.</li>
<li>
Pobiondek-Eabini, R., The Hydrogen Cyanide Content of Millet, <i>Arch.Tiernarh.</i>,
2/3, 71-80, 1951.</li>
<li>
Pjoan, M., Cyanide Poisoning from Choke Berry Seed, <i>Am.J.Med.Sci.</i>,
204: 350-553, 1942.</li>
<li>
Rabati, J., Biochical Study of the Peach Tree, The Presence of Amygdonitrile
Glucoside, <i>Bull.Soc.Chim.Biol.</i>, 15: 385-395, 1933.</li>
<li>
Schroder, J., and Damman, H., Studies of the Amount of Hydrocyanic Acid
Obtained from Different Millets, <i>Chem.Ztg.</i>, 35: 1436-7 (<i>Chem.Abst.</i>
62 1327).</li>
<li>
Stebbins, R.C., Lizards Killed by Millipede (Through HCN-benzaldehyde emission
from latter, ed.), <i>Amer.Midland Nat.</i>, 32(3); 771-778, 1944.</li>
<li>
Weiss, M., Hydrocyanic Acid in Apple Embryos, <i>Flora</i>, 149(3): 386-395,
1960.</li>
<li>
Wokes, F., and Willimott, S.G., The Determination of Cyanide in Seeds,
<i>J.Pharm. & Pharmacol.</i>, 3: 905-917, 1951.</li>
<li>
Worth, F.J., A Note on the Hydrocyanic Acid Content in Burma Beans, <i>Memoirs
Dept. Agi. India Chem.Series</i>, 7(1), 1928 (cf paper by Browne, J.G.).</li>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-58156213534013513732011-06-02T20:11:00.000-04:002012-09-24T04:02:01.921-04:00Apricot Kernels - Organic or Not?<h3>
Are organic apricot kernels better than non-organic?</h3>
<h3>
</h3>
This question is one that I'm asked frequently as a religious user of organic produce. If you're not likely to read this whole blog post, the short answer is, <b>no</b>. Now go and buy yourself some non-organic apricot kernels. Just make sure they're very bitter! <a href="#why">Or skip ahead within this entry.</a><br />
<br />
In order to answer this question thoroughly and effectively, we need to look at the primary reason for using the apricot kernels. Are they being used nutritionally or therapeutically? Let's explore.<br />
<br />
I am often accused of being a fanatic about certain things - nutrition has been no exception. In almost all cases of fruit and vegetables, I passionately advise people to go the organic route wherever possible. Very unfortunately for many, cost often presents a barrier that is difficult to overcome, as organic produce can be very expensive relative to non-organic. However - don't be disheartened. If you can't afford organic produce, keep reading. The situation can be much improved without taking the leap. <br />
<br />
There are two very different reasons for choosing organic over non-organic fruit and vegetables. <b>The first reason</b> is mineral content. Conventionally grown produce almost always lacks the trace mineral content of its organic counterpart. The reason for this is that minerals are found in the soil and imparted to the produce grown within it, unlike vitamins which are produced by the plant itself. Organic status has no bearing on vitamin content. The difference lies in the principles used in the farming method.<br />
<br />
Conventional crops (those grown with the use of chemicals) often strip the soil of its mineral content through over-farming. The same crops are often grown year after year after year, each cycle stripping what minerals the soil has to offer. Organic farming principles, on the other hand, generally involve crop rotation with periods of resting and rejuvenation, which allows the ground to recuperate and replenish. <br />
<br />
<div style="color: #666666;">
(This post isn't about trace minerals so I'm not going to go into great detail, but I will say that they are critical to health. You should be educated about them and I urge you to <a href="https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=the+importance+of+trace+minerals&oq=the+importance+of+trace+minerals" target="_blank">go off and do some research</a> upon completion of this entry.)</div>
<br />
<b>The second reason</b> for choosing organic over non-organic is pesticides and other chemical residues. In conventional farming, pesticides and other chemicals are used to protect, encourage and preserve crops - and, ultimately, to return a better dollar. The damage caused by crop pests results in massive yield and financial losses. These losses are built into the prices of organic foods, which is why organic produce is often so expensive, relatively speaking. These chemicals, however, can be very detrimental to our health, contributing significantly to countless disease states, such as cancer, and any number of other ailments of severity.<br />
<br />
For those who can't afford organic, all is not lost. Though it's not perfect, the worst of these chemicals can be washed from your food. Very thorough washing should be practiced before consumption, and the benefit will be produce that is largely free of these residues. Though I won't say the two become equals, the situation has improved considerably. As for trace minerals - these can be supplemented 100% effectively. Whether found in your food or in a high quality supplement, your body will be none-the-wiser. There are many trace mineral supplements available. These trace minerals generally come from ancient soil deposits of fulvic acid. Search for organic colloidal minerals or fulvic acid. The health benefits are too numerous to go into here.<br />
<a name="why"><br /></a>
<b>So - why are you using apricot kernels?</b> Most people are using apricot kernels for their amygdalin (vitamin B17) content. If this is the case for you, organic status has no bearing on amygdalin content. Not only that, but apricot stones are a very hard-shelled seed - almost more of a nut in this regard. The kernel is enclosed within its very own fortress. The kernel, being at the center of the fruit and within the protection of this very hard, thick enclosure, is entirely protected from chemical sprays and insect treatments. These chemicals never come into contact with the kernel. Some sellers of "organic" apricot kernels attempt to justify their price by wrongly suggesting that their non-organic counterparts contain concentrations of pesticides. This is a myth. <br />
<br />
Almonds, which are very close cousins of apricot kernels, are different in their whole structure. Where apricot kernels are very well protected from contaminants, almonds are not. Almonds aren't enclosed within a fruit and their shells are very soft and absorbent. The result, unfortunately, is that they take on chemical sprays quite readily. Comparisons can't be made between the two. <br />
<br />
Ultimately, your choice of kernel should be the most bitter (most amygdalin) kernel available to you. If it happens to be organic, fine, but don't look for organic thinking that you're getting a better option. You're simply not. Not only do they not contain more amygdalin, they are often of sweeter varieties of apricot kernel, such as those grown through India and Pakistan.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-83547275811800633332010-12-16T22:37:00.000-05:002012-09-15T21:58:05.847-04:00Apricot Kernels - Myths and Misconceptions<br />
The following are a number of common myths and misconceptions
involving apricot kernels and or amygdalin. Some of these misconceptions
probably serve the apricot kernel cause well, but they've always
troubled me and I feel it's necessary to correct them. The propagation
of these misconceptions has the potential to cause someone harm.<br />
<br />
<b>Misconception:</b> Apricot kernels contain arsenic. <br />
<br />
<b>Truth:</b>
Apricot kernels do not contain arsenic. This myth is the result of
miscommunication and misunderstanding. <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-which-should-be-used.html" target="_blank"><i>Some</i> apricot kernels</a> are rich in a
bound molecule called, 'Amygdalin'. This molecule contains one part dietary cyanide, which we believe to be essential to
our total well-being. Our bodies naturally convert cyanide to another
substance called, 'Thiocyanate'. Sickle cell anemia is a thiocyanate
deficiency disease. Cyanide must therefore be a biologically rational
dietary expectation. Our bodies have evolved to anticipate considerable
quantities of cyanide within our diets.<br />
<br />
<b>Myth:</b> Apricot kernel skins are poisonous. <br />
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> This is a myth that has been going around for many, many years. Not sure where it started, but it possibly began with a misinformed chef or recipe. This is a case of broken telephone. The "poison" the skin is meant to contain is the cyanide the flesh of the kernel itself contains.<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: </b>Apricot kernel oil contains B17 (amygdalin).<br />
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> Whilst there may exist trace quantities of amygdalin within apricot kernel oil, amygdalin is actually bound to the flesh of apricot kernels. Amygdalin is commercially extracted from apricot kernels after the oil has been removed. This is why the oil lacks the characteristic bitterness and flavour of the seed itself.<br />
<br />
<b>Myth:</b> Apricot kernels pose a major health risk. It's likely one would be poisoned if they were to consume apricot kernels. <br />
<br />
<b>Truth:</b>
Apricot kernels do contain cyanide, which is naturally found in many
foods common to our diets. The ingestion of irrational quantities of any
of these foods will result in a level of amygdalin the body is unable
to safely metabolize. All foods contain substances that are potentially
harmful in excessive quantities. <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-safe-dosage-practical.html" target="_blank">If apricot kernels are used sensibly</a>
and within accordance of the quantities established for safe consumption,
they pose no threat. Too much of anything can cause problems. In
contrast to the highly toxic treatments being used in conventional
medicine, apricot kernels are relatively safe. <br />
<br />
<b>Myth:</b>
The active component of apricot kernels, amygdalin (vitamin B17), has
been proven ineffective in the treatment or prevention of cancer. <br />
<br />
<b>Truth:</b>
Apricot kernels suffer from pariah syndrome. They've been outcast and
overlooked as a result of being confused with studies involving
Laetrile. The efficacy of amygdalin has been proven many times, but these scientists and medical professionals were vilified and discounted. It has
been openly recognized by once well-respected scientists around the globe and continues to be used successfully by several international clinics.
This information has been ignored, if not suppressed, and the
reputations of those who acknowledge its potential have been attacked
and smeared in an effort to silence or belittle their conclusions. This
has been well-documented and a search with our good friends, <a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=b17+scientist+Sugiura&btnG=Search">Google</a>,
will yield no shortage of interesting reading material. Scientific
evidence aside, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. In my opinion,
anecdotal evidence can have greater significance than scientific data, which
seems very often biased in favor of an agenda.<br />
<br />
I
am unaware of any studies that involve the use of apricot kernels as
the sole source of amygdalin. In my opinion, a suitable apricot kernel
is adequate for the therapeutic benefit of amygdalin. The unfavorable
studies that exist involve Laetrile, derived from apricot kernels. Whole
nutritional substances work on different levels, the inherent
constituents working together synergistically. This is why a Laetrile
treatment protocol must always include apricot kernels.<br />
<br />
<b>Myth: </b>Non-<a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2011/06/apricot-kernels-organic-or-not.html" target="_blank">organic apricot kernels</a> contain pesticides and are therefore inferior.<br />
<br />
<b>Truth:</b> This myth was started by a seller of organic apricot kernels - likely to justify the extraordinary price discrepancy and create a perception of superiority. An apricot kernel can be very poor quality whether it is organic or not. Amygdalin content and freshness are the defining characteristics of a <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2012/02/apricot-kernels-some-work-some-dont.html" target="_blank">quality apricot kernel</a> and nothing more. The hard shell of an apricot kernel is exceptionally dense and thick, which protects the kernel 100% from chemical sprays and treatments. Additionally, it resides within the center of the fruit. Rancid oil, on the other hand, be it organic rancid oil or conventional rancid oil, is a much greater concern than trace pesticides. Rancid oils are carcinogenic, so be sure to choose a fresh source of apricot kernels, organic or otherwise. <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2012/08/apricot-kernels-shelf-life-and-storage.html" target="_blank">Imported nuts and seeds</a> are likely to be rancid or well on their way.<br />
<br />
<b>Myth:</b> Apricot kernels are highly susceptible to aflatoxins.<br />
<br />
<b>Truth:</b>
The concern regarding aflatoxins is nothing more than a fear campaign
started by an opportunistic supplier of apricot kernels in
Australia. This mass-producer is an exporter of apricot kernels to the
confectionery industry in the U.S.. Apricot kernels are used in the
manufacture of marzipan and persipan. U.S. import laws require incoming
commodities to be tested for aflatoxin. This exporter saw an opportunity
to scare people away from purchasing other apricot kernels on the
market. This myth has rippled across the internet and created yet
another misconception to be unjustifiably concerned about. <br />
<br />
<b>Myth:</b> The amygdalin molecule is liberated only in the presence of cancerous tissue.<br />
<br />
<b>Truth:</b>
This myth incorporates a couple misconceptions. The amygdalin molecule
is unlocked by an enzyme called beta-glucosidase. The first
misconception is that this enzyme is found exclusively within cancerous
tissue. Beta-glucosidase is found throughout the body, within healthy
and cancerous tissue. Furthermore - apricot kernels themselves contain a
beta-glucosidase in the form of amygdalase. With this inherent catalyst,
the amygdalin molecule is actually liberated within the mouth through
chewing in the presence of saliva. The bitterness you taste is, in fact,
cyanide. The marzipan-like flavor is one of the other three liberated
constituents, 'benzaldehyde'. The third constituent is glucose.
Benzaldehyde is the food chemical that gives marzipan its familiar
flavor and is the very reason apricot kernels are now used in its
production. Marzipan was once manufactured using bitter almonds, which
are no longer commercially available. Bitter almonds are almost
chemically identical to bitter apricot kernels. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, it looks as though this misconception was started by <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2012/03/alive-and-well.html" target="_blank">Philip Binzel</a>.<br />
<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<i>When Laetrile comes in contact with the enzyme beta-glucosidase, the Laetrile is broken down to form two molecules of glucose, one molecule of benzaldehyde and one molecule of hydrogen cyanide (HCN). Within the body, the cancer cell-and only the cancer cell-contains that enzyme. The key word here is that the HCN must be FORMED. It is not floating around freely in the Laetrile and then released. It must be manufactured. The enzyme beta-glucosidase, and only that enzyme, is capable of manufacturing the HCN from Laetrile. If there are no cancer cells in the body, there is no beta-glucosidase. If there is no beta-glucosidase, no HCN will be formed from the Laetrile.</i></blockquote>
<br />
Philip Binzel was referring specifically to Laetrile when he made this statement, but many have taken it to include apricot kernels. Though we know this statement about beta-glucosidase is wrong, it is correct that the molecule isn't liberated until it comes into contact with one of a number of similar enzymes. I'd like to add that, though Binzel was incorrect regarding this enzyme, his contribution in the metabolic therapy cause remains valuable. However, we must stop this misconception from continuing to propagate, as it ultimately damages the cause. People continue to use this misunderstanding of amygdalin metabolism in their promotions of metabolic therapy. <br />
<br />
This misconception has the potential to cause harm where apricot kernels are concerned. <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-safe-dosage-practical.html">Read my post about safe dosage</a> and be sure to use apricot kernels responsibly.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-89381563786437175092010-11-22T00:07:00.000-05:002012-09-24T04:00:15.675-04:00Apricot Kernels - Which Should Be Used?<br />
This is an important question and one that should be considered carefully and seriously. If you choose the wrong apricot kernel, you're simply not going to benefit from them as you will an appropriate kernel, if at all. Consider this - you have a monster of a headache. An adult Tylenol or some other, suitable analgesic will quell your headache effectively. You have two choices at hand - one is a children's formula, the other is adult strength. The children's formula will have little to no impact. Which one will you choose to ease your suffering?<br />
<br />
In the common literature available on the subject, apricot kernels are referred to in a very general way, as though all kernels are equal. You might be familiar with the distinctions of bitter apricot kernels versus sweet apricot kernels, but most people assume that one "bitter" kernel is as suitable as the next. The assumption has been made that they are all essentially the same regardless of their origins, their variety, their exposure to oxygen, their growing regions, growing climates, processing methods, etc.. All of these factors impact heavily on amygdalin content. When we read about the therapeutic qualities of apricot kernels, we're reading about an amygdalin-rich specimen. Anything less is not going to do the trick. I believe the source of apricot kernels can often explain one person's failure and another's success.<br />
<br />
Though one apricot kernel may be considered bitter in nature, it may well have very little amygdalin. This is true of many apricot kernels being sold today. Generally speaking, apricot kernels that possess no bitterness are considered to be 'sweet' apricot kernels. They do still contain amygdalin, but in such small concentrations that the bitterness is overpowered by the sweeter flavors inherent to the variety. However, of the bitter varieties available, amygdalin concentrations vary greatly. The term, "bitter", is very much relative and subjective. Levels of amygdalin in bitter apricot kernels range from just above that of sweet almonds (approximately 1,400mg/kg) all the way up to levels close to bitter almonds, at roughly 68,000mg of amygdalin per kilo, or close to 7,000mg per 100 grams. Many of the vendors selling apricot kernels online are essentially selling 'sweet' apricot kernels. They may have a bitterness, but it is negligible. In order for them to have a therapeutic impact, one would have to consume very large quantities, which becomes detrimental for other reasons, such as fat content. <br />
<br />
<i>The bitter, the better</i> - this is an apricot kernel saying some of you might be familiar with. The bitterness of an apricot kernel is generally indicative of amygdalin content. When buying apricot kernels, I recommend you purchase from, at least, two different sources initially. Ask the retailer if you can return the product if unhappy. Choose the one most bitter. If apricots are grown in your country, you're far better off finding a home-grown, suitably bitter variety. Apricot kernels imported in bulk will not be fresh, nor will they be unaffected by methods of processing. Import regulations for virtually all countries require seeds to be nonviable to prevent propagation and the spread of foreign diseases. The seed embryos can be destroyed in a manner of ways, from chemical to radiation. Once dead, the kernel is in a state of decomposition. You don't want these kernels, regardless of the marketing spin. You can, however, import them yourself in personal quantities from a country selling locally grown, fresh kernels. This may come at a higher price, but you'll be better off. <br />
<br />
<b>BEWARE OF IMPORTED APRICOT KERNELS</b><br />
<br />
Sellers of imported kernels, such as those from India, Pakistan, China, and Turkey, are purchasing these at very low prices - as low as $1.00 per kilo, capitalizing on cheap labor and then selling them at massive profit margins. You should be aware of the differences. You do not want these kernels if you can access fresh, amygdalin-rich kernels from reputable vendors either locally, or from a country with standards. After apricot stones have been cracked, the shell must be separated from the kernels. The most common, cost-effective and efficient means to accomplish this is through floatation in a strong brine solution. Because amygdalin is water soluble, this very effectively reduces amygdalin levels. The longer the kernels are floated, the greater the reduction in amygdalin. The presence of salt in the floatation solution seems to greatly enhance the leaching of amygdalin. Many of these sellers are attempting to capitalize on the Hunza literature by referring to their kernels as "Hunza" or "Hunza region" kernels. These apricots are often irrigated with polluted water and processed with little to no standards. Apricots don't know where they're grown. They flourish where conditions are ideal. Freshness and cultivar dictate a kernel's amygdalin content. <br />
<br />
Don't be lured by the promise of <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2011/06/apricot-kernels-organic-or-not.html">organic status</a>. Organic status has no bearing on natural amygdalin levels. If the most bitter kernel available to you happens to be organic, terrific. However, some sellers of "organic" kernels suggest that their non-organic counterparts contain unusual concentrations of pesticide residue. This is baseless marketing spin. Don't concern yourself with the organic status of apricot kernels. Save this requirement for your food. With apricot kernels, we simply want the freshest product with the most amygdalin - if that product happens to be organic, terrific. Notice the price difference between "Organic" and non-Organic kernels. Same process - different price. Someone's making some money!<br />
<br />
The best apricot kernels available are going to be those grown in the country of the retailer, provided that a truly bitter variety is available. They should be processed frequently, as opposed to annually, and they should be sorted by hand to ensure the absence of contaminants, infested seed and mold. Very importantly - they should not have been floated. Most imported apricot seed will have been separated from the shell fragments through floatation. This is a question your retailer will have to ask their supplier. If this is the case, you already know there is a diminished amygdalin content. Additionally, when seed gets wet after it has already dried, the rewetting serves to deactivate the seed's inherent enzyme-inhibitors. Once this happens and the seed doesn't continue the germination process, the embryo dies. Once dead, the seed enters a state of decomposition. <br />
<br />
Choose your apricot kernels carefully. Once you've found one, <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-safe-dosage-practical.html">establish your suitable dosage gradually and safely</a>.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-63469912732018125472010-11-14T23:16:00.000-05:002012-09-24T19:45:32.537-04:00Apricot Kernels - Safe Dosage - A Practical GuideHow many kernels should we eat? How many kernels are safe to eat?<br />
<br />
These are tricky questions that aren't always covered in a thorough way. There's a great deal of misinformation out there from both sides of the fence. Some sources are simply misinformed. Comments such as,<br />
<br />
"<i>Vitamin B17 which is naturally found in many foods like strawberries, cashews and apricot kernels is harmless. After all... it's Only Natural!</i>".<br />
<br />
This is an ignorant and irresponsible statement that has, no doubt, resulted in harm. There are countless natural substances that are potentially dangerous. Amygdalin is no exception, which is why we need to use it safely and with respect. Exercise caution with websites that make similar claims. The above website, for instance, <i>appears</i> to be credible through quantity of content. However, none of this content is original. Virtually every page on this popular website has been copied and pasted from other sources, as is often the case. The danger of this practice is that it propagates poor quality information and lends to the illusion of credibility. The hidden agenda is to drive traffic to its sales site - selling the very products it pretends to advocate without bias. <br />
<br />
It is entirely possible to overwhelm our natural capacities to process amygdalin safely. Many people finding apricot kernels for the first time are likely to have an eager and ambitious approach to their use. Comments, such as the one above, may lend a hand in an overly-ambitious experiment that results in an undesirable scenario. Likewise, a one-size-fits-all dosage recommendation may also result in a negative experience for many of its followers. I'm going to draw some attention to critical considerations that are rarely addressed.<br />
<br />
First of all - as with all things ingested, it's very important we monitor how our bodies react to new substances and quantities. As is the case with most substances we ingest, consumption should be measured and balanced. If the body tells us, through adverse reaction, that we've given it too much of something, it's only sensible to make an adjustment to the quantity. Be in tune with your body and listen to what it has to say.<br />
<br />
With that in mind, let's talk about quantities for consumption.<br />
<br />
It's important to be aware that each of us has a different capacity to process any substance. Think of alcohol for example - some people seem capable of consuming large volumes before intoxication becomes apparent, where others can be instantly and obviously affected after just one standard drink. This is also true of amygdalin. There's no "one size fits all" dosage.<br />
<a href="http://www.blogger.com/goog_1316162482"><br /></a>
<a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/11/apricot-kernels-which-should-be-used.html">Read my post on which kernels to use</a>. Assuming we're using an amygdalin-rich apricot kernel, the rough guide many people adhere to is simply - not more than 5-6 kernels per hour. This will keep us out of serious harm's way. For a very few, side-effects may still be experienced even at this level. They will be minor and they will pass. If you are one of these individuals, experiment with that quantity, reducing it to a level that is tolerated. Increase after a few days one kernel at a time. For most, our bodies are well equipped to deal with these quantities without incident. By keeping to this rough guide, one can consume a considerable number of kernels over the course of the waking day. However - there will come a point where you'll find it more practical to consume closer to your maximum capacity a few times per day, or, perhaps, once in the morning and once at night with smaller quantities staggered throughout the day.<br />
<br />
Our tolerance for amygdalin increases as the body comes to expect it in increasing quantities. It's important to start at small quantities, building up gradually over the days and weeks to follow. Maximum capacities will vary based on individual circumstances. I've been consuming apricot kernels for many years and I can eat quite a number of the most bitter kernels available without incident. This same number would cause another individual to feel very unwell indeed. Slow and steady. You'll get there. <br />
<br />
The objective with amygdalin is to have as much within the system as we can comfortably tolerate without the experience of side-effects or adverse reactions. The trick is to build up to this quantity and to do this very gradually, over days and weeks. There is a threshold we must be mindful of. When we reach a quantity where we start to experience mild side-effects, such as dizziness or headache, this is the body telling us to put the brakes on - at least for the time-being. We want to find a suitable quantity we can consume before we reach these side-effects. By increasing quantities very gradually, one kernel at a time, one session at a time, we'll never over-do it to such a degree that we put ourselves in danger. The body response will always alert us to potential problems well before an issue of serious concern arises.<br />
<br />
These quantities will be different for everyone, regardless of your gender, height or weight. Finding the balance is the key.<br />
<br />
Though apricot kernels aren't very pleasant tasting, it's important to establish these safe quantities through chewing, as opposed to grinding then swallowing. Many people choose to grind their kernels and mix them with a liquid or some other more palatable substance. However, it's important to be mindful that this creates a very different experience for the body. When apricot kernels are chewed, side-effects can be experienced very soon after, as the amygdalin molecule's constituents are liberated in the mouth. They then very quickly enter the blood supply.<br />
<br />
It is a <a href="http://apricot-kernels.blogspot.com/2010/12/apricot-kernels-myths-and-misconceptions.html">myth and misconception</a> that the molecule is liberated only at the site of cancer. Contrary to popular belief, apricot kernels themselves contain an enzyme capable of unlocking the amygdalin molecule. This enzyme is called, 'Amygdalase', which is a beta-glucosidase. When the kernel is crushed, as with chewing, and mixed with a liquid, such as saliva, the catalyst enzyme is brought into contact with the amygdalin molecule and the liberation takes place. The bitterness you taste is hydrocyanic acid, the marzipan flavor is benzaldehyde.<br />
<br />
Ground apricot kernels don't undergo the same reaction. By grinding the kernels, they are essentially being broken down into thousands of miniature kernels. They haven't actually been crushed, nor mixed with a water containing-liquid, such as saliva. If they're mixed with juice or into a smoothie, they remain thousands of tiny kernels as they quickly pass through our mouths and into the digestive system. It isn't until they reach the intestines that the liberation occurs. Without first establishing safe consumption quantities through chewing, the risk exists that one might consume a quantity that exceeds their natural capacity to process amygdalin safely.<br />
<br />
It is also very, very important not to mix ground or crushed apricot kernels into some sort of amygdalin concoction. For instance, I have heard of some individuals experimenting with the production of apricot kernel milk, which is made just like almond milk. What happens in these scenarios is, amygdalin liberates within the liquid itself without the counterbalance of the neutralizing systems encountered within the body. It is possible that the liberated components of amygdalin may increase in concentration the longer the liquid stands. Not a good idea. Be rational with your consumption of apricot kernels. You're forgiven for being eager and ambitious, but patience and restraint must be exercised.Unknownnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-23089996969975699872010-11-05T22:07:00.000-04:002012-10-05T00:37:26.672-04:00Apricot Kernels - CancerThink of apricot kernels as a natural, chemotherapeutic agent. The chemotherapy drugs that are used conventionally are exceptionally toxic and designed to poison cells. The trouble with these drugs, however, is that they destroy both healthy and unhealthy cells. The hope with this method of treatment is that the drugs destroy the cancer before they destroy the body irreparably. One of the problems with these artificial chemicals is that our bodies have no biological expectation for them. There is simply no biological rationale for their presence within our bodies, so their effect is one of pure destruction without the natural counter-balance that exists for biologically anticipated substances, such as those found within apricot kernels.<br />
<br />
Apricot kernels contain a well-known poison - <b>cyanide</b>. Found naturally within these cancer killing seeds, cyanide is the poison being used to destroy malignant cells. The word 'cyanide' tends to conjure images of a deadly toxin for most people. The reason for this is that, through television, film and literature, we're all aware that it can be lethal in an adequate dose. We've seen it slipped into many a drink or used by secret agents to commit instant suicide when captured by the enemy. The reality is, most people probably didn't realize that there were non-lethal doses of cyanide. An even greater number of people wouldn't be aware that they're consuming it daily in the foods we eat without a moment of concern. <br />
<br />
Cyanide is a natural, dietary expectation, which means our bodies have a natural frame of reference for its metabolism. When cyanide enters our bodies within the foods we consume, we know what to do with it. Natural mechanisms kick in to process it, make use of it, and excrete it without incident. Cyanide is made use of through its transformation into another substance called, 'thiocyanate'. Thiocyanate performs a number of biological roles within the body. Sickle Cell Anemia is, in fact, a thiocyanate deficiency disease.<br />
<br />
<div style="text-align: center;">
From Wikipedia<br />
<br />
---</div>
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
<h2>
<span class="mw-headline" id="Biological_chemistry_of_thiocyanate_in_medicine">Biological chemistry of thiocyanate in medicine</span></h2>
Thiocyanate<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pmid17404297_2-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiocyanate#cite_note-pmid17404297-2">[3]</a></sup> is known to be an important part in the biosynthesis of hypothiocyanite by a lactoperoxidase.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pmid17204267_3-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiocyanate#cite_note-pmid17204267-3">[4]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pmid6340603_4-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiocyanate#cite_note-pmid6340603-4">[5]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pmid352945_5-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiocyanate#cite_note-pmid352945-5">[6]</a></sup> Thus the complete absence of thiocyanate<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pmid16934416_6-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiocyanate#cite_note-pmid16934416-6">[7]</a></sup> or reducted thiocyanate<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pmid18519245_7-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiocyanate#cite_note-pmid18519245-7">[8]</a></sup> in the human body, (e.g., cystic fibrosis) is damaging to the human host defense system.<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pmid17082494_8-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiocyanate#cite_note-pmid17082494-8">[9]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-pmid19918082_9-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiocyanate#cite_note-pmid19918082-9">[10]</a></sup><br />
Thiocyanate is a metabolite of sodium nitroprusside [amongst other cyanic compounds], after <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodanese" title="Rhodanese">rhodanese</a> catalyses its reaction with thiosulfate.</blockquote>
<div style="text-align: center;">
--- </div>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dose_makes_the_poison" target="_blank"><br />The dose makes the poison.</a> This principle of toxicology very much applies to cyanide. It is possible, of course, to overwhelm our bodies with too great a quantity of cyanide, as it is with virtually every natural substance in existence, including oxygen and water. However, the side-effects experienced with apricot kernels are generally quite mild and don't even begin to approach the severity of those associated with conventional chemotherapeutic drugs. We often read in the anti-amygdalin literature that numerous study participants "suffered from cyanide toxicity". And they call us quacks? At the very least, this observation could only be described as melodramatic. I can assure you... if these mild reactions can be defined as "suffering", these observers have yet to experience suffering. A visit to the cancer wings will demonstrate some real suffering resulting from adverse reactions to conventional treatments.<br />
<br />
We don't fully understand the mechanisms through which apricot kernels and cyanide work against cancer. There are a number of proposed mechanisms, but it seems none of these have been accepted by science as a whole. It is clear that a popular theory of action is very much false, and this has long been known as false. That is, that cancer cells, and only cancer cells, contain the one and only enzyme capable of unlocking the amygdalin molecule, which supposedly happened at the site of cancer and only at the site of cancer. This is pure silliness and we need to move beyond this stale and dis-proven theory. It is not the mechanism of apricot kernels, nor is it the mechanism of Laetrile or pure amygdalin. It continues to be propagated across the internet, which ultimately only serves to worsen the reputation of the apricot kernel, amygdalin and its constituent parts, and the proponents who earnestly want to uncover the secrets of their apparent effects. <br />
<br />
The true mechanism may involve a lacking presence of rhodanese in sufficient quantities at the site of cancer to neutralize the cyanide before it has the opportunity to poison the cells. Rhodanese is the mitochondrial enzyme we possess with the sole purpose of converting dietary cyanide to thiocyanate. It seems, whilst this enzyme is abundant in healthy tissue, it is somewhat deficient in malignant tissue. There are a number of inherent components to apricot kernels that likely work synergistically. One possible mechanism may involve cyanide in combination with benzaldehyde. Benzaldehyde has proven anti-tumor properties in its own right. Some believe that the benzaldehyde is the critical factor and not the cyanide - where others believe the two work in tandem. <br />
<br />
Benzaldehyde undergoes a transformation catalyzed by cyanide ions. The result is benzoin, which has a long history of medical use. Benzoin is largely comprised of benzoic acid, which has anti-fungal, anti-bacterial and anti-microbial properties. Many believe there is a strong link between cancer and microbial and fungal activity.<br />
<br />
<br />Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-12767204907921411062010-11-02T20:42:00.000-04:002012-10-03T20:45:29.445-04:00Apricot Kernels - The BenefitsThe benefits of apricot kernels can be numerous. Of course, a number of these benefits are anecdotal, which tends to be the case with whole, natural foods. "Evidence-based" medicine tends to look at individual compounds and constituents rather than the whole, or the synergistic mechanisms of the whole's individual parts collectively.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Cancer </h3>
Though it's clear we don't fully understand the mechanisms of action, there can really be little doubt that apricot kernels have a destructive influence on various cancers. Literally thousands of people report it and continue to do so. If they weren't experiencing benefit, this entire subject would fizzle out into oblivion. Though science has yet to look at this thoroughly, the anecdotal evidence is overwhelming and we needn't be reliant upon science to give us permission to be proactive. The studies that have been done involve Laetrile and amygdalin specifically. These are, indeed, derived from apricot kernels, but biological expectations are based on whole foods and all of their components. Even though presented as such, the studies are far from conclusive. We need to look at apricot kernels in their whole form as a separate entity. <br />
<br />
<h3>
Pain Relief</h3>
Apricot kernels have a natural analgesic (pain killing) effect. This is owing to the presence of benzaldehyde, one of amygdalin's constituent parts. Benzaldehyde is scientifically acknowledged to be an effective analgesic that is relatively non-toxic and that is metabolized and excreted by the body swiftly. When we chew apricot kernels, amygdalin's constituents are liberated immediately, contrary to popular belief. This is why one can experience benefit from this natural pain killer very soon after consumption.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Blood Pressure (Lowering of)</h3>
Apricot kernels can lower blood pressure very effectively. Though this might be considered a benefit by some, this can be an issue for those who would like to use apricot kernels but already have a low blood pressure. For these individuals, it might be necessary to use something to counter this effect - perhaps licorice root or something similar. Be sure to consult a naturopath or medical practitioner.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Lung Health</h3>
Apricot kernels have been used for hundreds of years in Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM). They are typically used to treat lung conditions, such as coughing and asthma. They are considered an effective expectorant (for expelling phlegm). They are also used to promote bowel movement and intestinal health.<br />
<br />
<h3>
Antimicrobial</h3>
Apricot kernels have proven antimicrobial, antibacterial and antifungal properties. This is found to be especially true against Candida albicans, which has strong cancer associations - perhaps another possible mechanism of action.<br />
<br />
<h3>
</h3>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5289060153018054315.post-77779979958280696392010-10-31T09:33:00.000-04:002012-09-27T02:55:47.875-04:00Apricot Kernels - All About<h2>
Definition of Apricot Kernel </h2>
An apricot kernel is the nut-like object found within the hard, outer shell of the apricot seed or stone. <br />
<h2>
<br />Definition of Apricot Seed</h2>
The term apricot seed refers to the whole pit found at the core of the fruit. The seed comprises a dense, hard outer shell that serves to protect a softer, fleshy kernel within from which the plant ultimately grows. The term apricot seeds is often used in reference to apricot kernels, though apricot seeds are technically whole apricot stones. The word apricot seed can be both singular and plural. The term apricot seed may refer to a collective or one, as in: <b><i> </i></b><br />
<br />
<b><i>We will process 400 tonnes of apricot seed this year.</i></b><br />
<br />
or<i> <b> </b></i><br />
<br />
<i><b>If you plant this apricot seed, its kernel will sprout and a tree will grow.</b></i><br />
<br />
<h3>
More about apricot kernels</h3>
<br />Apricot kernels are closely related to the almond, which is also part of the rose family. They have a nutritional profile similar to that of almonds. Apricot kernels are often bitter in flavor due to varying concentrations of a cyanogenic glycoside called, 'Amygdalin'. There are hundreds of different cultivars of apricot kernels grown all over the world, each possessing different quantities of amygdalin. Those that contain very little amygdalin taste similar to almonds.
Those that contain large concentrations are generally thought of as
unpalatable due to their extreme bitterness. This bitterness, or lack of, is indicative of amygdalin content. Apricot kernels of
these varieties are believed, by many, to have therapeutic value against
various cancers due to their high concentrations of amygdalin. This concept is widely considered very controversial. The apricot itself is believed to have originated in China, where it's been used in both culinary and therapeutic capacities for centuries. Scientific studies from as recently as 2005 have demonstrated potential efficacy. Scientists in Korea found that treating human prostate cancer cells with amygdalin induced programmed cell death in vitro. They concluded, "amygdalin may offer a valuable option for the treatment of prostate cancers".<br />
<br />
Although bitter apricot kernels are most famously known for their use in alternative cancer therapies or natural cancer treatments, many people are unaware of their other common uses. The common Italian liqueur, Amaretto, is made from bitter apricot kernels. In fact, the Italian word amaretto can mean, 'a little bitter' or 'macaroon'. Many people would be familiar with a famous Italian treat known as amaretti biscuits. These are, indeed, little macaroons also made from bitter apricot kernels. <br />
<br />
The most famous flavor incorporating apricot kernels today is <b>marzipan</b>. Though marzipan was once traditionally made with bitter almonds, they have become very difficult to procure. They are often now replaced by bitter apricot kernels. When made with bitter apricot kernels, the technical term for this paste is, <b>'persipan'</b>, though it is often referred to as, "marzipan". Both bitter almonds and bitter apricot kernels contain amygdalin. Amygdalin can be processed down into its constituent parts to form hydrocyanic acid, benzaldehyde and glucose. The benzaldehyde component of the amygdalin molecule is sold commercially as "almond extract". This extract is often used in place of either bitter almonds or bitter apricot kernels to provide a traditional marzipan flavoring to various recipes that require it.<br />
<br />
Apricot kernel oil is another popular use for apricot kernels.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apricot#cite_note-14"></a><br />
<h2>
</h2>
Unknownnoreply@blogger.com0